SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO
Civil

Department

Entered by:

Non-Limited

-

I

I

TITLE

0.F

CASE:
_

City of Fresno vs. Fresno Building Healthy

Communities
Case Number:

LAW‘AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER

Hearing Date:

September 5, 2019

Department:

503

Court Clerk:

M. Duarte

19CECGOO422

Hearing Type:

From Chambers

Judge:

Kimberly A. Gaab

'

>

Reporter:

Not Reported

-

Appearing Parties:
_
_

Plaintiff:

No Appearances

Counsel:

Defendant:

Counsel:

,

Off Calendar

[

]

[

]Contin'ued to

[

]

Submitted on points and authorities with/without'argument.

[

]

Upon

[

]Mo_tion

[

]Taken undef advisement

[

]

No

and

filing of points

is

granted

[

[

]

Pursuant

to

at‘

_

Dept'.‘_ for

_
[

]

Matter

and denied

ih pért.

argument pursuant

becomes

to Local

the order of the court.

No

[

]Motion

is

denied

Rule 2.2.6 and

CRC 3.1308(a)(1).

further order

necessary.

is

and CCP section 1019. 5(a), no further order
as the order of the court.

Service by the clerk

will constitute

Is

necessary

‘

The minute order adopting the

notice of the order.

[

]

See attabhed copy.of the

[

]

Judgment debtor_ sworn and examined.

[

]

Tentative Ruling.

_

]with/with'outprejudice.

[

CRC 3. 1312(a)

tentative ruling serves

argued and submitted.

is

authorities.

]in part

party requested oral

]Tentative'ruling

_

1Setfor

[

[

[X]

No Appearances

Judgment debtor
failed to appear.
Bench warrant issued in the amount of $

-

_

'

JUDGMENT:

~

r

[

]Money damages

[

]Claim of exemption

Principal

$_

]Default

[

lnterest$___
[

]

granted

entered inthe amountof:
Total
Attorney fees
]denied. Court orders withholdings modified to

]Other
Costs
[

$_

[

_'

$_

$_

$_ per

FURTHER, COURT ORDERS:
]Monies held by levying officerto be [ ]released tojudgmentcreditor.
]returned tojudgmentdebtor.
$_ to be released tojudgment creditor and balance returned tojudgment debtor.
notified.
]Levying Officer County of
]Writto issue
[
[
[X] Other. The matter having been under advisement, the court now rules as follows: See attached Order After
[

[

'[

I

]

{

r

Hearing.

.

I

CV-14b R0348
Il___l..L.._. r..—

‘

LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER

.
.

 Order Afler Hearing
City of Fresno

Re:

Fresno Building Healthy Communities

v.

Superior Cour’r

Cose No. 19CECGOO422

Augus’r 14, 2019 (Dep’r. 503)

Hearing Do’re:
V

Motion:

Intervener Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Judgment on The Pleadings

'

Association's Motion for
‘

Ruling:

The mo’rion forjudgmenf on The pleadings by ln’rervener Howard
Association ("Intervener") is gron’red,_wi’rhou’r leave To amend.

Jarvis

Taxpayer

Explanation:

concerns Measure P, ’rhe "Fresno Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks
Tax," o ballot ini’ria’rive on ’rhe November 6, 201 8 Consolidated Statewide General
Election ballot Tho’r proposed ’ro authorize ’rhe City of Fresno ’ro collecT o 3/8 percen’r
soles 0nd use ’rox. The ini’ricn‘ive received 52.1 7 percent affirmative vo’res dnd wcs
declared foiled on December 12, 201 8 by ’rhe Fresno City Council for no’r having
obtained Two—‘rhirds vo’rer approval. Defendant Fresno Building Healthy Communities
(“FBHC”), ’rhe proponent of Measure P, argues ’rhot only o simple mojori’ry wos needed
’ro approve The measure. ln’rervener now moves forjudgmen’r on The pleadings,
contending That Two-Thirds vote was indeed required.
This ac’rion

The California Supreme Court explained The principles

when

0nd

construing consfifu’rioncl provisions

’rho’r

courts ore To follow

s’ro’ru’res:

We start by oscribing ’ro words Their ordinary meaning, while Taking
account

0nd

of related provisions

constitutional

scheme.

0nd

’rhe

structure of The relevom‘ s’ro’rufory

Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors

(Los

v.

39 COLS’th 282, 293; Bighorn—Desen‘ View Wafer
Agency v. Verji! (2006) 39 Col.4’rh 205, 212
If The provisions' intended
.)
purpose nonetheless remains opaque, we moy consider extrinsic sources,
such os cm initio’rive's bcllo’r materials. (Larkin [v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals
Bd. (2015) 62 CGIATh 152,]
158
Moreover, when construing
.)
inh‘ion‘ives, we generally presume elec’rors ore aware of existing low. (In re
Lance W. (1985) 37 Col.3d 873, 890, fn.
Finally, we apply
.)
Superior Court (201

6)

.

.

.

.

.

.

1

'independenfjudgment when construing
57

Cal.A’rh 401,

(California

(Uplond).)

416

.

.

.

.)

Cannabis Coalition

.

.

1

provisions. (Wesfern States

.

.

.

.

constitutional

Petroleum Assn.

v.

0nd

statutory

Board of Equalization

(201 3)

—

v.

City of

Upland

(201 7) 3 Col.5fh 924,

933—934

 The
favor
or

cour’r

whenever

Iimi’r

’rhe

is

about The scope of The
narrowly consTrue provisions

To “resolve doub’rs

possible,

0nd

exercise of That power."

Proposition 13
Ar’ricle

XIII

/ Ar’ricle

XIII

A was added

prevent subversion of

(Id. o’r

p. 936, ci’ro’rions

ini’rio’rive

Tho’r

power in

its

would burden

omified.)

A, Section 4

’ro

’rhe s’ro’re

Consfifufion in 1978 by Proposifion 13. To
by ensuring Tho’r los’r property ’rox

property Tax
simply be bockfilled wi’rh o’rher new ’roxes, article Xlll A, section 4
prohibited coum‘ies, ci’ries, 0nd special dis’rric’rs from enocfing any special 10x without 0
Two—Thirds vo’re of The elec’roro’re. (Apartment Ass’n of Los AngeIes Coum‘y, Inc. v. City

revenue could

limi’ro’rions

i’rs

no’r

of Los Angeles (2001) 24 Col.4’rh 830, 836.)

The California Supreme Cour’r noted, in Kennedy Wholesale, Inc. v. State Bd. of
Equalization (1 991) 53 Col.3d 245, Tho’r article XIII A, sec’rion 4's ’rwo—Thirds vo’re
requirement “demons’rro'res, unambiguously, Tho’r The voTers knew how To impose o
supermajori’ry vo’ring requirement Upon Themselves when Tho’r is who’r ’rhey won’red To
do." (Id. o’r p. 252.) Arficle XIII A, section 4 was referenced in con’rros’r To article XIII A,
sec’rion 3: “Thon‘ The voters expressly odop’red such o requirement in secTion 4 strongly
sugges’rs That They did no‘r do so implicitly in section 3.” (lbid., emphasis in original.)

Ah‘adeno

Bloodgood (1 987) 192 Col.App.3d 585, o property 10x
was approved by o m0jori1y of vo’rers, bu’r The Los
To raise money for The library
Angeles Coum‘y Confroller declined To implement The ’rox based on The supermojori’ry
requirement of or’ricle XIII A, section 4. The Coun‘ of Appeal held Tho’r The Two-thirds
voTe requirement applied To The initiative, nofing Tho? The voters' obili’ry ’ro approve o
parcel 10x wos dependen’r on The district's authority under s’rofe low ’ro levy 0 parcel
Tax. (Id. o’r p. 589.) AIfadena Library wos cited wi’rh approval by The California Supreme
Cour’r in Som‘o Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guordino (1 995)
Col.4Th 220, where described ’rhe Altadeno ini’riofive as ”o proposal To impose 0
In

Library Dist.

v.

dis’rric’r

1

1

i’r

special fox for library purposes [which] obtained o majority but
approval required by ProposiTion 13." (Id. o’r p. 258.)

Under Proposition 13 0nd Alfadena
Through

ini’riofive, local

Prooosifion 218

voters mus’r vo’re

/ Ar’ricle

XIII

in

no’r

The Two—Thirds vo’rer

order ’ro impose o special 10x
fovor by o supermojorh‘y.

Library, in

C, Section

2,

Subdivision (d)

Article XIII C, secTion 2, subdivision (d) of The California Cons’ri’ru’rion (adopted in
1996 as por’r of Proposi’rion 2] 8) provides: "No loco! government moy impose, exTend, or
increase ony special Tax unless 0nd until ’rho’r Tax is submi’r’red ’ro ’rhe electorate 0nd
approved by o Two—Thirds vo’re." “Proposition 218
should be ‘Iiberally construed 1‘0
effecTuo’re its purposes of limifing local government revenue 0nd enhancing Taxpayer
consem‘.‘ [CiToTion.]” (Bay Area Cellular Telephone Co. v. City of Union City (2008) 162
.

Col.App.4’rh 686, 698—699, emphasis

Unifed Wafer Conservafion

.

.

see olso Cify of San Buenovem‘uro
3 COLSTh 191 1204.)

in original;

Disf. (201 7)

1

v.

,

Liberally construing Proposiflon 21 8 To effecfuofe ifs purposes of “limiting local
governmen’r revenue 0nd enhancing Taxpayer consent" necessitates applying The

2

 enhanced Taxpayer consent, i.e., o ’rwo-‘rhirds vote for oll special
Taxes. Relying on The 201 7 Colifornid Supreme Cour? decision in Upland, FBHC argues
’rho’r only o simple majority is needed ’ro approve a special ’rox enacted by vo’rer
constructionxrequiring

initiative.

Upland involved 0

vo’rer initiative

permit medical marijuana dispensories

’ro

pcy on annual $75,000 licensing 0nd inspection fee.
o’r
pp. 931 -932.) The California Cannabis Coalition collected
(Upland, supra, 3 Col.5’rh
signatures from 15 percent of ’rhe ci’ry's voters 0nd requested a special elec’rion ’ro
consider ’rhe ini’rio’rive pursuant to Elections Code section 9214. (Ibid.) Because
Proposition 218 requires local governments ’ro presen’r general Tax proposals o’r general
0nd

fo require

each dispensary

To

C, § 2(b)), 0nd concluding ’rho’r The $75,000 fee
a general 10x, The ci’ry council determined ’rho’r The inifiofive could n01 be
c1 special election. (Id. o’r p. 932.) The California Cannabis Coalition filed o

election for location candidates
cons’ri’ru’red

(orf. XIII

on in
writ of mondo’re alleging Tho’r ’rhe ch‘y violo’red
hold 0 special election on The ini’rio’rive. (Ibid.)
vo’red

Elections

Code section

921 4 by failing

’ro

Terms, or’ricle XIII C,
The California Supreme Court mode clear Tho’r “[b]y
section 2 only applies fo actions Token by o ”local government.” (Id. 01 p. 936.) “[T]he
common unders’ronding of loco! government does not readily lend itself fo include The
electorate, instead generally referring ’ro o localify‘s governing body, public officials,
0nd bureaucracy." (Id. 01 p. 937.) Referring ’ro The bollo’r pamphlet, The Cour’r no’red
’rho’r “construing local government os on en’ri’ry dis’rinc’r from The public is consistent not
only with how The Term is used in the provision's Text, bu’r also wi’rh how i1 is used in h‘s
interpretation
findings 0nd declarations." (Id. o’r p. 938.) The Court found suppon‘ for
i’rs

i’rs

0nd

’rho’r “These materials indicate bo’rh
governmen’r' cs if is commonly understood
0nd That the provision's intended purpose did n01 include limiting vo’rers' "power To
raise Taxes
by s’rofu’rory ini’riofive." (Id. c’r pp. 940-941 .)

in

Proposition 218's findings

That

or’ricle X   

.

.

declarations, noting

C employs The ’rerm

‘Iocol

.

Because The Upland Cour’r concluded Tho? vo’rers were no’r The “local
government" for purposes of the election Timing requirement applicable ’ro general
foxes under Proposition 8 (or’ricle XIII C, sec’rion 2, subdivision (b)), FBHC contends ’rho’r
vo’rers also ore n01 The “local government" for purposes of The ’rwo—Thirds vo’re
requirement applicable ’ro special Taxes in article XIII C, secfion 2, subdivision (d).
However, Upland is confined ’ro ifs limited holding concerning fhe election do’re for on
ini’riofive. The Court specifically addressed ’rhe Third sentence of article Xlll C, section 2,
subdivision (b), which reads, in relevant pcr’r: “The election required by This subdivision
shall be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of ’rhe
governing body of The local government, excep’r in cases of emergency declared by 0
unanimous vote of ’rhe governing body." This provision does no’r concern The vote
required for o Tax. Rofhei, i1 applies when the governing body of o Iocol government is
scheduling The election. The Cour’r stated: "[W]e conclude Tho’r ’rhe requirement in

L

article XIII C, section 2, subdivision (b)—mondofing That general foxes be submitted ’ro
The voters of a regularly scheduled general election—opplies only ’ro local governments
0nd no’r ’ro ’rhe electorate's initiative power
(Upland, supra, 3 Col.5’rh o’r p. 943.)
.

.

.

.

IT is

The

well-sefiled That “[G]n appellate decision is n01 ou’rhority for everything said
opinion bu’r only 'for The poin’rs oc’ruolly involved 0nd oc’ruolly decided.‘

in

cour’r's

[Ci’rofion.]"

(Sonfisos v. Goodin (1998) 17 Col.4’rh 599, 620.) Language in on opinion
only “in The ligh’r of The foc’rs 0nd ’rhe issue Then before The court

be undersfood

.

3

.

.

is ’ro

 (Ginns v. Savage (1964) 61 Cal.2d 520, 524 fn. 2.) And “[c]oses ore not authority for
propositions n01 decided.” (Sino Century Development Limited v. Farley (2012) 21 1

Col.App.4Th 688, 696; Mochodo v. Superior CourT (2007) 148 Cal.AppATh 875, 881
issue presented in the ins’ron’r case was never reached by ’rhe Upland Court.

.)

The

The Two—Thirds vo’re requirement is not placed on The “local government."
proposed special Taxes mus’r be “submi’r’red ’ro The electorate," which mus’r
approve ’rhe proposals by o ’rwo—Thirds vo’re. Since local government does no’r approve
special ’rox proposals, is erroneous To conclude Tho’r The ’rwo—Thirds vo’re requirement in
or’ricle XIII C, section 2, subdivision (d) applies only ’ro o “(local government." Once The
ini’riofive is submitted ’ro ’rhe voters,
is incumbem‘ Upon ’ro ’rhe vo’rers To approve
by C1
Rather,

i’r

i’r

i’r

Two—Thirds vote, or otherwise reject

i1.

(See Elec. Code, § 921

5.)

The Upland Court, in fact, distinguished The election do’re requirement (which
only applies ’ro local governments in scheduling elections) from ’rhe ’rwo—Thirds vote
requirement Tho’r applies To vo’rers:

I

we

Kennedy Wholesale, 53 Col.3d 01 page 252, 279
intended purpose includes imposing requirements on
vo’rers, evidence of such 0 purpose is clear. In on‘icle Xl   C, section 2,
subdivision (d), for example, The enoctors adopted o requiremen’r
providing ThoT, before c: local government can impose, extend, or
increase ony special ’rox, voters must approve The 10x by o frwo—Thirds
vote. That consfi’rUTes o higher vofe requirement Than would otherwise
apply. ([Elec. Code,] § 921 7 [providing for a majority vote].) That 1h_e
vo’rers explicitly imposed o procedural two—fhirds vote requirement on
Themselves in or’ricle XIII C, s‘ec’rion 2, subdivision (d) is evidencefrho’r ’rhey
did n01 implicitly impose o procedural Timing requirement in subdivision
[A]s

observed

when on

in

.

.

.

,

ini’riofive's

(b).

(Upland, supra, 3 COLSTh
In ’rhe

o’r

p. 943,

obove—referenced

emphasis added.)

provision, The Cour’r refers To Elections

Code section

ond which provides Tho? such initiatives
appears Tho’r The Cour’r was referring ’ro
s’ro’red ’rho’r, under or’ricle XIII C, sec’rion 2, subdivision (d), voters
initiatives, ’rhen, when
mus’r approve special Taxes “by o Two—Thirds vo’re" 0nd such “consfi’ru’res o higher vo’re
requirement ’rhon would otherwise opply” pursuant To Elections Code section 921 7.
(Ibid.) The Two—Thirds vote requirement applies ’ro oll special 10x proposals, regardless of
The proponent of ’rhe proposal.
921

7,

pass

o

s’rcx’rufe

wi’rh

specific To local voter initiafives,

o simple majority

vo’re. Thus,

i’r

i’r

,

[following ’rhe

Th0?

Legislative Analyst's Office likewise concluded
That increase Taxes mus’r secure The some vote of The

Upland decision, The

“[c]i’rizen initiatives

electoroTe—mojority vo’re for general foxes and Two-‘rhirds vo’re for special Toxes—os
Those placed on ’rhe bollo’r by local governing bodies.“ (Intervener's Request for
Judicial No’rice, Ex.

l,

p.

1.)

 Accordingly, Intervener's motion fdrjudgmen’r on The pleadings is granted,
wi’rhouT leave To amend. All requests forjudiciol no’rice ore granted, wi’rh The exception
of Intervener's Exhibit

Rulinglssued By:

2.

/7Q¢ll//f/M/y/4fl/
(Jud d6)

on

q/W/fi
/<§(D

1e)

 FOR COURTUSEONLY

SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA - COUNTY 0F FRESNO
Civil

Department, Central Division
1130 "0" Street

93724-0002

Fresno, California

(559) 457-2000
TITLE

0F CASE:

.

City of Fresno vs. Fresno Building Healthy

Communities

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE 0F MAILING
I

certify that

am

I

Cfing'Eggfi‘zz

not a party to this cause and that a true copy of the:
>

Minute‘ Order from

was placed

i'n

Chamber with Order After Hearing

a sealed envelope and placed for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown below
am readily familiar with this court’spractice for collecting and processing

following our ordinary business practice.

 

Correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing,
in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid.

.W

it

is

deposited

'

Place of mailing:

93724-0002

Fresno,Célifornia

'

7

0n

Date:

09/05/2019

Clerk,

.

by

M

M. Duane

KristiM Costa
Fresno City Attorney's Office

-

Timothy A.

.

Bittle

921 Eleventh Street, Sulite 1201
Sacramento, CA 95814

'

2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
,

Deborah B. Caplan
Olson Hagel & Fishburn LLP
555 Capitol

Mall, Suite

Sacramento,

’D

400

CA 95814

Clerk's Certificate of Mailing Additional

TGN-06b R08-06

Address Page Attached

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

'.Deputy
_