State High Court to Rule on Voters’ Efforts to Slow Growth

The state Supreme Court, in a pivotal test of citizen efforts to stop rapid growth, agreed Thursday to review a pioneering local initiative barring developments that cause traffic congestion.

At issue is a measure adopted by Walnut Creek voters in 1985 imposing a construction moratorium in the city as long as rush-hour traffic at key intersections exceeds 85% of the capacity.

Last September, a state Court of Appeal, citing the duty of the courts to “zealously guard” the initiative process, upheld the measure even though it conflicted with the broad, pro-growth policies of the city’s general plan.

Contra Costa County newspaper publisher Dean Lesher, who had sought to build a 30,000-square-foot plant next to an existing company facility, asked the justices to set aside the ruling, calling the attempt to link development with traffic control “unworkable.”

According to attorneys, the high court’s decision in the case could have far-reaching impact on the ability of voters to make major policy changes in the long-range, often complex general plans put together by local officials.

As California’s population continues to soar, slow-growth campaigns have become increasingly widespread. From 1986 to mid-1988, there were 76 growth-control votes in the state--70% of which were passed, according to the California Assn. of Realtors.

Maria P. Rivera, a Walnut Creek lawyer representing Lesher, welcomed the high court’s move, expressing hope the justices will call a halt to “this sort of ‘rifle-shot’ initiative that is the antithesis of careful, comprehensive land-use planning.”

Rivera noted that similar legal questions have been raised in pending cases challenging growth-control initiatives in Oceanside and Riverside. “These issues, focusing on the interplay between initiatives and good planning, are critical for all communities in the state,” she said.

Mark I. Weinberger of San Francisco, an attorney representing Walnut Creek, warned that if the appeals court ruling is reversed, it would have “unfortunate implications for land-use planning throughout the state and the protection of the people’s initiative powers.”

Weinberger accused Lesher of unfairly suggesting that the voters lacked expertise and could not be trusted with the complexities of community planning. If there are conflicts between an initiative and a general plan, the lawyer said, it is up to officials “to integrate policies of the initiative into a workable general plan.”

The initiative, apparently the first of its kind in the state, was adopted four years ago by the narrow margin of 9,562 to 9,162. Lesher, the largest private employer in the city, and other foes of the initiative filed suit, saying the measure improperly conflicted with the community general plan favoring expanded commercial and residential development. Under state law, such initiatives must be consistent with general plans, Lesher said.

A Contra Costa County Superior Court judge declared the initiative invalid because it conflicted with the general plan and did not constitute a valid amendment to that plan.

In its ruling in September, a Court of Appeal here agreed the ordinance--which it called “a bold step toward fighting traffic congestion”--was inconsistent with the pro-growth features of the general plan. But in such circumstances, the initiative must be considered to be a legally imposed amendment to the plan and upheld to “implement the expressed will of the people of Walnut Creek,” the panel said.