CCMIN080796 - Laserfiche WebLink

use designations. The initiative went through three levels of judicial review: the Superior Court, the Appellate Court, and the California Supreme Court. It was upheld at all levels. Mr. Weinberger's firm worked with the County on this litigation. Mr. Weinbeger stated that the effect of the Supreme Court decision is to validate the concept that citizen initiatives and other issues placed on the ballot can restrict the ability of the legislative bodies from redesignating properties until the electorate approves. There are various technical requirements that relate to initiative measures; specifically that they must actually legislate something. The traffic control measure in Walnut Creek was challenged and the Supreme Court said that the issue did not actually adopt General Plan and/or zoning requirements, but instead was a statement of policy; therefore, it was not a lawful enactment. In addition, the other cases mentioned by Mr. Redgwick have been concluded. The Stanislaus County case involved a proposed initiative measure by citizens and the County declined to place it on the ballot, taking the position that the initiative was unlawful and would be invalid. An action was filed to force the Board of Supervisors to place the measure on the ballot. The trial court and Court of Appeal found the measure was not invalid on its face and the measure was placed on the ballot. The lawsuit terminated at that point. The voters chose, however, not to adopt the initiative. The Monterey County matter was filed, but never litigated. He did not believe the case ever went as far as a decision on the merits of the matter. Ms. Michelotti asked if the Napa case would ever go any farther. Mr. Weinberger indicated the case was decided in December 1995 and that is the final decision. There are pending applications from landowners to go before the voters for exemption from the initiative. So there are on-going administrative interpretations of the initiative, but it is in full force and effect. Ms. Mohr asked if Napa County were at risk for inverse condemnation suits? Mr. Weinberger indicated it was difficult to predict whether a possible claim would be filed. Landowners can come before the County and seek voter approval for an amendment to the initiative restricting development. In addition, there would have to be a writ of mandate issued setting aside the enactment to the extent that the initiative ever deprived a landowner of all economic use of the land. If there were a decision finding there was an unlawful taking of property, the result would be to order the Board of Supervisors to amend its General Plan or take other necessary steps to eliminate the taking of the property. There might also be delay damages. In addition, that initiative has a provision that says if there were a taking, the legislative body is obligated to modify the effect of the initiative measures to the extent necessary to assure that there is not an unlawful taking of property. There were determinations made in the Napa case that there is an adequate expected supply of housing and other uses that would have been restricted. It is fair to say that the courts will not find there has been a taking of property simply because certain properties are designated for a higher use than other properties. Zoning is basically a line-drawing exercise and there must be an end to one type of use 08/07/96 -2-