11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Our Neighborhood Voices November 3,2021 Page 2 construction of a water, communication or transportation infrastructure project for which the Legislature has made a declaration of a statewide concern. In the uncodified introduction to the Initiative,the measure sets forth the intent of people in adopting the measure. These declarations include an explanation of the measure's purpose: -The purpose of this measure is to ensure that all decision regarding local land use controls, including zoning law and regulations,are made by the affected communities in accordance with applicable law, including but not limited to CEQA(Public Resources Code §§ 2100 et seq.),the California Fair Employment and Housing Act(Government Code §§ 12900-12996), prohibitions against discrimination (Government Code § 65008), and affirmatively furthering fair housing(Government Code § 899.50)." The declarations also express concern regarding "[n]umerous state laws that target communities for elimination of zoning standards. . . that eliminate or erode local control over local development and circumvent[CEQA],creating the potential for harmful environmental impacts to occur." According to the information provided to us,questions have been raised by others regarding the scope of the local control provided for in the Initiative. Some have questioned whether the Initiative would allow local governments to enact local laws that conflict with or supersede CEQA, FEHA,or other state anti-discrimination laws. Legal Analysis The Initiative is a constitutional amendment. In construing the meaning of a constitutional amendment,the courts are instructed to apply the same principles that they apply to the construction of statutes. (Professional Engineers in California Government v. Kempton (2007)40 Cal.4th 1016, 1037.) The court's"fundamental task . . . is to determine the Legislature's intent so as to effectuate the law's purpose."(Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court(2015) 61 Cal.4th 1175, 1198.)Courts look first at the language of an initiative,but the language"must also be construed in the context of the statute as a whole and the[initiative's] overall ... scheme." (People v. Rizo(2000)22 Cal.4th 681, 685.)"Absent ambiguity. [the court] presume[s] that the voters intend the meaning apparent on the face of an initiative measure and the court may not add to the statute or rewrite it to conform to an assumed intent that is not apparent in its language."(Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek(1990)52 Cal.3d 531,543.) Where there is ambiguity in the language of the measure, "[b]allot summaries and arguments may be considered when determining the voters' intent and understanding of a ballot measure." (Legislature v. Deukmejian(1983)34 Cal,3d 658. 673, fn. 14.) Courts considering the interpretation of a constitutional amendment generally begin their analysis with the codified provisions of the initiative measure. The codified provisions of the Initiative utilize similar language for counties, charter cities,and general law cities to describe the scope of the laws in which local laws will prevail over conflicting state laws: "a general plan,