Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/1996

Home

Page 4 January 15, 1996 Z.B. would use their "best efforts" to adopt into their respective general plans cer- tain spe':ified goals and policies concerning the Ridgelands. If the parties enacted !any future general plan amendments affecting the Ridgelands, the amendrrients had to state they would not be effective unless the other parties made p~rallel amendments to their general plans. Under state law, municipalities and counties had to adopt, periodically review, ~nd amend comprehensive, long-term general plans. The adoption and review of these plans called for the exercise of governmental powers created DY the state Planning and Zoning Law. Local legislative bodies could not surrende~ or impair those powers, or the powers of successor legislative bodies. Hay yard and Pleasanton both amended their general plans to adopt the agreem¢nt's goals and policies. Both cities' plans said future amendments 'affectin the Ridgelands would not be effective unless the other parties made similar nendments. The county had not yet amended its general plan. The Alameda County Land Use Association (and other nonprofit organi- zations)irepresented property owners in all three jurisdictions. The associa- tion sue~l Pleasanton, Hayward, and the county, asking the court to declare their agr'~ement invalid and unenforceable. The association claimed the agree- ment w~s an unlawful attempt by the parties to give up their discretion and power to enact legislation, and an attempt to delegate land use authority exclu- sively d~legated to them by law. The association also claimed the agreement would c~use landowners and the general public irreparable harm. The Icourt dismissed the association's complaint, holding that no actual controv{rsy existed. The court found the association failed to allege it had enforceaible rights under the agreement, that the agreement had been enforced to its detriment, or that the agreement would not substantially advance a legiti- mate st~.te interest. The hssociation appealed. It admitted there was no controversy over any specific lapplication of the agreement because it had not tried to get any of the parties t~ amend their general plans. Instead, the association said its challenge to the agreement's validity created an actual controversy for the court to decide. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court. The power court improperly concluded that no controversy existed, so it was wrqng to dismiss the case. The case was sent back to the lower court to vacate tl~e dismissal. The iassociation alleged a genuine controversy. It claimed the cities and county i~mpaired the future exercise of their own authority to amend their respective general plans. This was a question of law on which the court had to rule. Through the agreement, the parties impermissibly gave up some of their power a~d duty to enact legislation affecting land w~th~n their respective juris- dictions! They gave up the power to amend their own general plans by giving each ortner the power to veto such amendments. [ Calif, ornians for Native Sahnon etc. Association ,: Department of Forestry, 271 Cal~Rpt~: 270 (1990). Meffprd v. City of Tulare, 228 P2d 847 (2951). ?