Archives: July 2023

SECOND DISTRICT HOLDS HOUSING PROJECT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR CLASS 32 IN-FILL EXEMPTION BECAUSE OF INCONSISTENCIES WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES

General Posted by   

In United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1074, the court held that the City of Los Angeles failed to consider the project’s consistency with the general plan’s applicable housing element polices, and that the challenging petitioner group sufficiently exhausted its administrative remedies regarding the inconsistencies by contesting the project’s consistency with the housing element’s general goals, without referencing the specific policies.

 Background

The City approved a project that would replace 40 apartment units subject to the City’s rent stabilization ordinance with a 156-room hotel, and determined the project was exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 32 in-fill exemption. United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles sought a writ of mandate arguing that the in-fill exemption does not apply because the project is not consistent with a general plan policy regarding the preservation of affordable housing. The trial court granted the writ, halting the project pending CEQA review or the City making a finding that the project is consistent with the policy at issue. The City appealed.

Court of Appeal’s Opinion

Exhaustion

The court concluded that United Neighborhoods exhausted its administrative remedies because its comments that the project’s demolition of the rent stabilized apartment units would conflict with the first goal of the housing element were sufficient to apprise the City of the issues raised in litigation. The court explained that United Neighborhoods’s references to the housing element’s general goals, rather than its specific policies, was immaterial because a general plan is structured in such a way that a project that is inconsistent with housing element goals will also conflict with the housing element policies. Moreover, the court found United Neighborhoods’s objection concerned multiple housing element policies relating to the preservation of, as opposed to the production of, affordable housing, and was therefore sufficient to apprise the City of the policies that United Neighborhoods’s objection implicated. Finally, the court emphasized that the City expressly acknowledged that United Neighborhoods’s objection was that the project’s removal of the apartment units would conflict with the housing element.

Consistency with General Plan Policies

The court held that substantial evidence does not support the City’s determination that the housing element policies are inapplicable, and that the City did not consider the project’s consistency with the applicable policies.

First, the court explained that the housing element policies are applicable to the project because the project will have an impact on the preservation of housing reflected in several of the housing element’s goals, objectives, and policies. The court found that the City focused only on the portions of the housing element that related to the production of new housing.

The court also rejected the City’s argument that “affordable housing” is a term of art that does not include rent stabilized housing units. The court explained that nothing in the housing element suggests that “affordable housing” is a term that deviates from its ordinary meaning, and therefore must refer to the dictionary definition: “housing that can be afforded by those on low or median incomes; spec. housing made available to those on lower incomes at a price below normal market value, as the result of legislation or subsidy by a local authority or the state.” Accordingly, the court determined that rent stabilized units are a form of “affordable housing” because they prohibit landlords from raising rents to reflect normal market value under certain circumstances. While the court acknowledged that deference is typically given to an agency’s finding of consistency with its own general plan, such deference is not given with respect to the City’s determination of which policies apply to the project.

Second, the court rejected the City’s argument that its consideration of the project’s consistency with the housing element can be inferred from its express discussion of other related policies. The court explained that the other policies that the City expressly discussed did not mention affordable housing and were less specific than the housing element policies.

The court was also not persuaded that the City’s conditional approval of the project on compliance with the Ellis Act—a requirement in the housing element—implied that it considered applicable housing element policies. It explained that the conditions of approval indicated that the Ellis Act condition is derived from the City’s Municipal Code, and therefore does not demonstrate the City’s consideration of the housing element policies.

While the court emphasized that the City was not required to make formal findings that housing element policies are outweighed by competing polices favoring the project, or that such a decision would necessarily conflict with the general plan, it concluded that a court cannot defer to the City’s weighing and balancing of general plan policies without supporting evidence that the City did weigh and balance all applicable policies.

Therefore, because the Class 32 in-fill exemption requires consistency with all applicable general plan policies, the court upheld the trial court’s determination that the City’s application of the exemption was unlawful.

FIRST DISTRICT HOLDS LACK OF A LEGALLY COMPLIANT LAND USE DESIGNATION ALONE DOES NOT PRECLUDE AN AGENCY FROM DENYING A PROJECT FOR UNRELATED REASONS

General Posted by   

In Lafayette Bollinger Development LLC v. Town of Moraga (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 752, the First District Court of Appeal upheld the Town of Moraga’s denial of a development application based on unrelated inconsistencies with the general plan, despite the fact that Moraga’s land use element included a land use designation for the project site that was out of compliance with the law.

Background

The Town of Moraga denied Lafayette Bollinger Development LLC’s and Joan and David Bruzzone’s application to develop housing on the developers’ property and certify the EIR for the project because the project was not consistent with portions of the general plan related to public safety, residential density, grading volumes, location of other proposed development relative to the site, and impacts to natural resources. Moraga also denied the developers’ request for a general plan amendment and to change the zoning of the subject property from a “Study” designation to “residential.” The “Study” designation was originally intended to be temporary, but remained in place for approximately two decades and only allowed agricultural and accessory building uses. The developers sued Moraga, challenging its denial of the development application and general plan and zoning changes. The trial court issued a peremptory writ of mandate in favor of the developers, directing Moraga to issue a legally compliant land use designation, but rejecting the developers’ other claims regarding the denial of the development application, including takings, equal protection, and due process violations. The developers appealed.

Court of Appeal’s Opinion

 While the Court of Appeal agreed that the “Study” designation violates Government Code section 65302, subdivision (a), it rejected the developers’ argument that the improper land use designation rendered Moraga’s entire land use element unlawful, and that Moraga was therefore unauthorized to reject its development application. The court concluded that a lack of a legally compliant land use designation alone does not preclude a local agency from denying a project application for unrelated reasons.

Procedural Issues

The court rejected Moraga’s argument that the developers’ challenge of the illegal land use designation is time barred because the court agreed that Moraga forfeited this argument by failing to raise it before the trial court.

The court also rejected Moraga’s argument that the developers failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by not requesting that Moraga adopt a land use designation independent of the development application. The court determined that the developers had repeatedly challenged the designation during the administrative proceedings—including specifically arguing that the designation prevented them from developing the property, that there was no legal precedent for leaving the designation in place for an extended duration, and that Moraga had an obligation to change it. Therefore, the court concluded, Moraga had sufficient notice of these claims.

Unlawful “Study” Land Use Designation

The parties did not contest that the “Study” land use designation violates section 65302, subdivision (a) because, as the court explained, the designation fails to describe a use of land and there is no dispute that the designation was a placeholder until Moraga could determine the appropriate permanent category. The court agreed with the trial court that Moraga had a mandatory duty to adopt a legally compliant land use designation for the property and that the trial court properly issued a writ directing Moraga to fulfill its duty.

The court further held, however, that this deficiency in the general plan did not void Moraga’s denial of the project application. The court explained that the developers failed to identify any law that prohibited Moraga from denying the project application simply because the general plan’s land use element did not comply with section 65302, subdivision (a). Here, the reasons given for the denial of the application involved public safety concerns and environmental impacts, and had nothing to do with the improper designation. If the developers were to prevail on their argument, the court reasoned, any deficiency in the general plan would preclude a local government from making any land use decision until the deficiency was corrected. Therefore, the developers failed to demonstrate a prejudicial abuse of discretion in the denial of their project application.

Takings

The court upheld the trial court’s determination that the developers’ takings claim was ripe as to the denial of the development project application and the land use designation, but not smaller potential projects, because neither Moraga or the developers explained why the trial court’s holding was unsound. Therefore, both parties forfeited their ripeness arguments.

The court rejected the developers’ takings claim on the merits. The court held that the illegal land use designation did not prevent the developers from seeking to develop the property, as the project application was not denied because of the land use designation and Moraga’s denial of the project did not deprive developers of all economically beneficial use of the property. The developers failed to argue otherwise on appeal, or show that smaller projects would not be economically beneficial or that they had no other reasonable use of the property. Moreover, the court also reiterated the trial court’s finding that the developers did not have a reasonable expectation of building the number of homes for which it claimed it had an “investment-backed” expectation because the character of the land might have limited the number of residences that could be built.

Equal Protection & Substantive Due Process

The court rejected the developers’ claim that Moraga’s actions denied them equal protection. The court determined that although Moraga’s actions resulted in an unreasonably long delay in adopting a permanent land use designation to comply with Government Code section 65302, Moraga had a rational basis in the delay to gather more information about the property due to the property’s unique aspects, including significant slopes and grading. Moreover, the court reiterated that the unlawful land use designation did not make it impossible for developers to develop the property or prevent them from submitting a project application, as they were able to propose a permanent designation in conjunction with the project application. Lastly, the developers failed to explain why Moraga’s denial of the project application had no rational basis beyond those involving the land use designation.

The court also rejected the developers’ substantive due process claims based on Moraga’s failure to issue a permanent and lawful land use designation for similar reasons. The court reiterated that there were rational reasons to retain the “Study” land use designation, and that it did not prevent other development or substantially hinder use of the property.

FOURTH DISTRICT UPHOLDS CITY’S APPROVAL OF AN ADDENDUM TO A PROGRAM EIR FOR A RESIDENITAL HOUSING PROJECT

General Posted by   

In Olen Properties Corporation v. City of Newport Beach (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 270, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that no new conditions existed that would trigger the need for a subsequent EIR for a residential housing project in the designated Airport Area near John Wayne Airport.

Background

The City of Newport prepared an addendum to the City’s 2006 general plan program EIR for a residential housing project. The Project is a 312-unit residential housing development on an existing surface parking lot in a mixed-use development area, located within the designated Airport Area near the John Wayne Airport. The addendum concluded that the Project’s impacts would either be the same or not substantially greater than those described by the program EIR.

Olen Properties Corporation, an owner of commercial property near the Project site, challenged the City’s approval of the Project and the addendum. The trial court rejected the petitioner’s claims and the petitioner appealed, arguing that new conditions not addressed in the program EIR required the City to prepare a subsequent EIR, rather than an addendum.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

Land Use

The Court of Appeal rejected the petitioner’s claims that the City violated several land use policies in the City’s general plan. First, it rejected the argument that the Project was not large enough to be consistent with the 10-acre requirement for a “mixed-use residential village” because the court determined that the City properly adopted the its Planning Commission’s definition of the Project to include the surrounding business area—thus satisfying this size requirement. Second, the court rejected the argument that the Project’s “public park” did not qualify as a required “neighborhood park.” The court found this terminology distinction meaningless. Third, the court found that the Project’s irregularly shaped park satisfied the minimum dimension requirements—which the court interpreted as exceeding 150 feet in two dimensions, measured from any point within the park’s space, rather than the lesser of the park’s length or width.

Standard of Review

The court explained that the reverse substantial evidence test described in Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307 applies only in limited circumstances where the initial EIR is a program EIR, and a subsequent project is proposed which is not the same or within the scope of the Project, program, or plan described in the program EIR. Otherwise, the appropriate standard is the deferential substantial evidence standard, under which the court considers whether substantial evidence supports the City’s determination that none of the conditions for requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Public Resources Code section 21166 exist.

The court applied the deferential substantial evidence standard because the Project is within the scope of the projects described in the program EIR, which expressly contemplates the construction of higher density housing within the Airport Area.

Traffic

The court held that the City’s use of Level of Service instead of Vehicle Miles Traveled to analyze traffic impacts in the addendum for the Project was appropriate because the program EIR used LOS, and there is no feasible way to compare LOS with VMT. Moreover, the court explained that CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 (the section requiring VMT to analyze traffic impacts) operates “prospectively” and subsequent changes to the guidelines are not “new information” triggering a subsequent EIR. Otherwise, the court reasoned, any changes to the CEQA Guidelines would trigger the preparation of an EIR for every project.

Hazardous Materials

The court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the proximity to a preexisting semiconductor plan would result in environmental impacts. The petitioner and the City provided conflicting expert opinions on this issue. The court concluded that because the substantial evidence standard of review applies, the City’s conclusion was supported and the petitioner’s conflicting evidence is inconsequential.

CC&Rs

The court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the Project does not comply with CC&Rs for the area because they are covenants between private parties, and there is no legal requirement for an agency to consider CC&Rs in an EIR. Moreover, the court explained that the CC&Rs predate the program EIR, and they therefore cannot constitute changes in the Project or its circumstances requiring a subsequent EIR.

Geology and Soils

The court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the Project’s geotechnical report recommendations indicated that impacts on geology and soil could be significant. The court explained that the recommendations were aimed at protecting the Project from corrosion from soil—such as by encasing metal materials in corrosion-resistant materials—and were not designed to protect the environment from the Project.

Lastly, the court concluded that the Project was not required to have a paleontologist physically present at the Project site constantly, and that the Project’s on-call paleontologist was consistent with the City’s general plan requirements.