## Facts

- California law required cities to adopt a comprehensive general plan governing future development policies, including required elements such as land use and circulation.
- Walnut Creek adopted a general plan that anticipated substantial future growth.
- City voters later adopted Measure H by initiative, a growth-control measure enacted as a zoning ordinance that imposed limits and policies inconsistent with the existing general plan’s growth assumptions.
- Lesher Communications and other opponents sued to invalidate Measure H and to enjoin its enforcement.
- The trial court held Measure H invalid; the Court of Appeal reversed by construing Measure H as a valid amendment to the general plan.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to decide whether an initiative-enacted ordinance inconsistent with the general plan could operate as a plan amendment and, if not, whether it was invalid under the statutory consistency requirement.

## Issues

1. Whether an initiative-adopted growth-control measure enacted as a zoning ordinance, but inconsistent with an existing general plan, should be treated as an amendment to the general plan.
2. If not a valid general plan amendment, whether the measure is invalid under state law requiring zoning ordinances to be consistent with the general plan.
3. Whether the local initiative power permits enactment of zoning provisions that conflict with mandatory statewide planning requirements.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and held Measure H invalid.
- Measure H was not a general plan amendment because it was enacted and presented as a zoning ordinance and did not follow or identify itself as using the statutory general plan amendment process.
- Because Measure H conflicted with the existing general plan, it violated the statutory requirement that zoning ordinances conform to the general plan and was unenforceable.
- The voters’ initiative power did not exempt Measure H from compliance with statewide planning and zoning statutes.

## Legal Principles

- A city’s general plan is the controlling statement of local development policies and objectives; zoning ordinances must be consistent with the general plan.
- “Consistency” requires zoning to be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the general plan.
- A zoning ordinance that conflicts with an existing general plan is not saved by recharacterizing it as an implied plan amendment; general plan amendments must be adopted through the legally required process and as amendments in form and substance.
- Local legislation enacted by initiative is subject to the same substantive state-law limits that bind municipal legislative bodies, including mandatory planning and consistency requirements.

## Conclusion

The court held that an initiative-enacted zoning ordinance limiting growth cannot operate as an implied amendment to a city’s general plan and is invalid when it conflicts with the existing plan under California’s statutory consistency doctrine.


Lesher Commc’ns, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 52 Cal. 3d 531, 802 P.2d 317 (Cal. 1990)