## Facts

- Napa County voters adopted “Measure J” (1990), an initiative amending the land use element of the county general plan to preserve agricultural and open-space land.
- Measure J confirmed and readopted, through 2021, existing general plan designations for specified agricultural categories and related policies on minimum parcel size and maximum building density.
- Measure J required that, until December 31, 2020, changes to the protected agricultural/open-space designations could occur only by a vote of the electorate, subject to limited exceptions (including annexation to a city, specified findings that land is physically unusable for agriculture and compatible with agriculture-related uses, siting of a solid waste facility, and avoidance of an unconstitutional taking).
- Landowners and development interests challenged Measure J, alleging state planning statutes barred initiative amendments to general plans and that the long-term voter-approval requirement was invalid.
- The trial court and Court of Appeal upheld Measure J; the challengers sought review in the California Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether a county general plan, including its land use element, may be amended by local initiative under the California Constitution.
2. Whether state planning statutes implicitly or expressly preclude initiatives from amending a general plan.
3. Whether Elections Code provisions concerning initiative review reflect legislative authorization for initiatives affecting general plans.
4. Whether Measure J’s requirement of voter approval for specified amendments through 2020 is invalid as contrary to statute or constitutional limits (including separation of powers or improper delegation).

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding Measure J.
- The Court held that the state planning law does not prohibit the electorate’s use of the initiative power to amend the land use element of a county general plan.
- The Court held that Elections Code section 9111 contemplates and permits initiatives that amend or affect a county general plan.
- The Court upheld Measure J’s long-term voter-approval requirement, finding no statutory conflict or constitutional defect.

## Legal Principles

- The local initiative power is broadly protected; absent a clear legislative withdrawal, courts construe the power liberally and do not infer limits from procedural statutes governing legislative bodies.
- Adoption and amendment of a general plan are legislative acts and are therefore generally subject to initiative and referendum.
- Detailed statutory procedures for local legislative bodies to adopt or amend general plans do not, by themselves, displace the people’s parallel authority to legislate by initiative.
- A voter-adopted measure may require that specified future amendments receive voter approval for an extended period, so long as no explicit statutory prohibition applies and no constitutional violation is shown.
- Reserving final approval to the electorate for particular plan amendments is not an unlawful delegation to private parties and does not violate separation-of-powers principles within local government.
- General plan consistency and comprehensive-planning requirements are not defeated by an initiative that imposes an additional procedural condition (voter approval) for specified amendments, absent a demonstrated present inconsistency or statutory bar.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a countywide initiative amending the land use element of a county general plan and requiring voter approval for certain future redesignations of protected agricultural and open-space lands through 2020, concluding that neither state planning statutes nor constitutional limits barred the initiative or its long-term approval mechanism.


DeVita v. County of Napa, 9 Cal. 4th 763 (Cal. 1995)