## Facts

- A city adopted a long-range general plan that designated certain hillside parcels for “Hillside Residential” use, allowing residential development on developable land below a specified elevation at up to five dwelling units per acre.
- A voter-sponsored land-use initiative targeted 38 hillside parcels within that designation and was adopted by the city council without alteration under Elections Code section 9215.
- The initiative amended the general plan and, for the targeted area, largely prohibited residential development, subject to narrow exceptions and a contingent clause allowing one home per 20-acre parcel if a court found a taking.
- The initiative imposed large minimum parcel sizes and floor-area limits and created a transferable development credit (TDC) program to shift development capacity to other parts of the city.
- Hillside property owners petitioned for mandate and declaratory relief, alleging the initiative rendered the general plan internally inconsistent because it barred housing where the plan designated residential development.
- The trial court found an internal inconsistency and ordered the city to vacate the ordinance adopting the initiative.
- An environmental organization that had intervened to defend the initiative appealed; the city did not appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the initiative’s amendments caused the general plan to become internally inconsistent under state planning law.
2. If an inconsistency existed, whether a court could order vacatur of the initiative’s adoption, or instead must order the city to cure the inconsistency while preserving the initiative to the extent legally possible.

## Decision

- The court held the initiative caused an impermissible internal inconsistency in the general plan by prohibiting residential development in an area the plan designated for residential use at specified densities.
- The court rejected arguments that the TDC program, contingent “takings” allowance, or generalized environmental constraints reconciled the conflict for the affected parcels.
- The court reversed the judgment insofar as it ordered vacatur of the initiative’s adoption ordinance.
- The court remanded with directions to issue a writ of mandate ordering the city to cure the general plan inconsistency, leaving the lawful means of cure to the city.

## Legal Principles

- A general plan must be an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies; land-use measures may not create conflicts among the plan’s elements and designations.
- An initiative that amends a general plan is subject to general plan internal consistency requirements.
- General plan consistency is evaluated with attention to the plan’s geographic designations and policies for specific areas; shifting development potential elsewhere does not, by itself, resolve a site-specific inconsistency.
- When an initiative creates a general plan inconsistency, the preferred remedy is a writ compelling the city to cure the inconsistency, rather than judicial invalidation of the initiative, unless cure is not feasible.

## Conclusion

The court agreed that the initiative’s broad ban on residential development within designated hillside residential parcels made the general plan internally inconsistent, but held the trial court’s remedy was overbroad; the proper disposition was to order the city to cure the inconsistency through lawful planning or legislative action without automatically nullifying the initiative.


Denham, LLC v. City of Richmond, 41 Cal. App. 5th 340, 254 Cal. Rptr. 3d 289 (Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2019)