11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Our Neighborhood Voices November 3,2021 Page 3 specific plan,ordinance or regulation . . .that regulates the zoning,development,or use of land," is deemed to prevail over a conflicting state law. In considering whether such provisions would allow a locality to enact a law that conflicted with the requirements of CEQA or FEHA,a court would have to consider whether those statutes"regulate the zoning,development or use of land." CEQA is a statute that aims to"develop and maintain a high-quality environment"and to "require governmental agencies at all levels to develop standards and procedures necessary to protect environmental quality."(Pub. Resources Code, §2 1001.)CEQA does not directly regulate the use or development of land. A hypothetical local law that stated a specific type of development project was exempt from CEQA review would not be regulating the use or development of land, but would be regulating the process by which a development application is considered. FEHA likewise does not directly regulate the use of land, but establishes a civil right to seek,obtain, and hold housing without discrimination because of race, color,religion, sex, gender or other protected classifications. A hypothetical local law that permitted discrimination in housing would not directly regulate the use of land. The language of the Initiative does not support an interpretation that allows local governments to create their own exemptions to CEQA or FEHA. This conclusion is only bolstered by turning to the statutory scheme as a whole, including the Initiative's declarations and statement of purpose. Uncodified statements of intent may be used to aid in the interpretation of constitutional provisions.(People v.Allen(1999)21 Cal.4th 846, 860-861.) The Initiative plainly declares that all decisions regarding local land use should be made In accordance with applicable law"and specifically lists"CEQA . . .the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, . . . prohibitions against discrimination, . . .and affirmatively furthering fair housing. . . ." The Initiative also identifies as a specific problem the state laws that have allowed development to`circumvent[CEQA], creating the potential for harmful environmental impacts to occur." These provisions make clear that the Initiative is not intended to allow local government to evade CEQA,but to require them to comply with it in the approval of land use and development projects by eliminating state exemptions from CEQA that have been included in "[n]umerous state laws that target communities for elimination of zoning standards." To conclude that an Initiative that states as part of its declaration of purpose that local land use decisions should be made in accordance with CEQA and FEHA,actually intends for local governments to be able to pass ordinances that conflict with those statutes would conflict with the fundamental principle of statutory construction:to effectuate the intent of the legislative body that enacted the measure. The California Supreme Court has employed this approach to interpreting constitutional initiative amendments. In Professional Engineers in California Government v. Kempton(2007)40 Cal.4th 1016, for instance,the Court noted that while an initiative amendment did not repeal certain statutes, the express statements in the measure's statement of purpose established without a doubt that the electorate intended to repeal those statutes by enacting the initiative. (Id. at p. 1038.) The structure of the Initiative's codified provisions includes exemptions,and some may argue that the absence of CEQA or FEHA from these exemptions indicates an intent to include them in the scope of state laws that local ordinances can preempt. However,the listed exemptions all pertain to specific types of land use or development activities. CEQA and FEHA are not land use or development activities. The absence of CEQA or FEHA from the list of