Barrett v. County of Napa

Background

Napa County adopted Measure D, Napa County Ordinance No. 2018-02, in June 2018. The measure restricted agricultural helicopter use as part of an effort to preserve the County’s rural, agricultural, and peaceful character. It amended the County Code to permit private-property helicopter takeoffs and landings supporting direct agricultural activities only when three conditions were met: the activity was solely a qualifying aerial agricultural activity, no people other than those essential to the activity were transported, and the takeoff or landing was “unavoidable.” The ordinance also required written reports within 48 hours and provided for civil and criminal penalties.

James and Heidi Barrett, who owned and used a helicopter for agricultural work, and Barrett and Barrett Vineyards, LP, sued Napa County and the Napa County Board of Supervisors. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief and originally brought three claims: that the ordinance was facially vague, that it was facially preempted by Federal Aviation Administration regulations, and that it deprived the Barretts of vested rights. An earlier order dismissed all but one aspect of the vagueness claim: whether the word “unavoidable” was unconstitutionally vague.

The parties’ motions

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on their claim that “unavoidable” violated the due-process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and the California Constitution. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the plaintiffs no longer stated a claim because County officials had issued Frequently Asked Questions explaining the term.

The FAQs stated that a private-property takeoff or landing was “unavoidable” only when the agricultural activity could not be completed from a public airport or using a public airport would create a health or safety risk. They also said that convenience, avoiding airport fees, and minimizing costs did not qualify. Examples that might qualify included insufficient fuel capacity because of the distance from a public airport, unavailable supplies or support services, health risks from transporting exposed chemical tanks, and severe weather affecting flight safety.

Analysis and ruling

A vague ordinance violates due process if ordinary people cannot understand what conduct it prohibits or if it does not provide standards for non-arbitrary, nondiscriminatory enforcement. The court recognized that agency guidance can sometimes clarify regulated conduct and reduce vagueness concerns.

The court nevertheless found that factual questions remained about whether the County’s interpretation of “unavoidable” was reasonable. The plaintiffs argued that the guidance effectively banned on-site takeoffs and landings and could force helicopters to make additional trips from public airports over homes and businesses, contrary to the ordinance’s purpose of protecting residential areas from helicopter noise. The defendants argued that this consequence was speculative and that the guidance might instead reduce helicopter use. The court also noted the defendants’ position that significant operations requiring multiple takeoffs and landings, including aerial spraying involving chemical loads, would qualify as unavoidable.

Because more facts were needed to assess the guidance’s net effects and whether those effects would defeat the ordinance’s purpose, Judge William Alsup denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court stated that a trial would follow.

Requests for judicial notice

The court granted the defendants’ requests for judicial notice of Measure D, its ballot materials, the FAQs, and excerpts of the Napa County ordinances. It granted the plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of excerpts from the Napa County General Plan and denied the plaintiffs’ other requests as moot.