Blog

Fourth District Affirms California Coastal Commission’s Authority to Impose Conditions on Coastal Development Permits Under Local Coastal Programs

General Posted by   

In Lindstrom v. California Coastal Commission (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 73, the Fourth District Court of Appeal partially reversed the trial court, finding the California Coastal Commission did not abuse its discretion when it imposed special conditions on a coastal development permit for a residential project proposed on a vacant lot in the City of Encinitas. The court found three of four conditions were consistent with the City’s local coastal program and within the Commission’s authority. The court rejected one condition because it was overbroad, unreasonable, and did not achieve the Commission’s purpose.

Background

In 2012, the Lindstroms applied for a coastal development permit with the City of Encinitas (City) to build a home atop a 70-foot high ocean-side bluff. To comply with the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP), the permit application included a geotechnical report prepared by Geotechnical Exploration Inc. (GEI), an engineering firm hired by the Lindstroms. The LCP required the report to, among other things: (i) certify that the development would not endanger the bluff or require future bluff stabilization devices (i.e. coastal armoring or seawalls) based on a 1.5 safety factor over a 75-year time period, and (ii) calculate the minimum setback required for the development – a figure that could not be less than 40 feet. The GEI report concluded the proposed project could be built with a 40-foot setback without requiring bluff stabilizing measures in 75 years.

On May 2, 2013, the City’s planning commission approved the development permit with a condition requiring the Lindstroms to provide a letter stating the building could be removed in the event of endangerment. On May 28, 2013, GEI submitted a revised technical analysis which concluded the earlier report erred in calculating the development’s feasible setback. The new report stated the project would require a 72.25-foot setback, and proposed an alternate analysis based on the “natural angle of repose,” which would yield a 39.7-foot setback.

In June 2013, two Coastal Commission Commissioners appealed the City’s approval of the permit on grounds that it was inconsistent with the LCP. During the appeal process, the Lindstroms hired a second engineering firm, TerraCosta Consulting Group (TCG) and requested the Commission delay its decision. In October 2015, TCG prepared a new geotechnical report which concluded the slope would be safe with a 40-foot setback at a 1.29 safety level – a figure lower than the LCP-mandated 1.5 safety level.

The Coastal Commission heard the appeal in July 2016. As part of the appeal, a staff geologist concluded the proper setback should be 60 to 62 feet. The Commission agreed with the staff geologist, and approved the permit with four conditions. The first condition (“Condition 1.a”) required construction to adhere to a 60- to 62-foot setback. The second condition (“Condition 3.a”) prohibited all use of coastal armoring devices. The third condition (“Condition 3.b”) required removal of the home in the event a government agency deemed occupancy unsafe due to natural hazards. The fourth condition (“Condition 3.c”) imposed mandatory remediation measures that the landowners would be required to take in the event hazardous bluff conditions threatened the structure.

In August 2016, the Lindstroms filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the Commission’s conditions of approval. The trial court partially granted the petition and found in favor of the Lindstroms as to the first and second conditions (Conditions 1.a and 3.a) but found the Commission did not abuse its discretion in imposing the third and fourth conditions (Conditions 3.b and 3.c). The Commission and the Lindstroms appealed.

The Fourth District’s Decision

The Court of Appeal for the Fourth District partially reversed the trial court’s holding. Relying on the plain language in the City’s LCP and the Coastal Commission’s authority to impose reasonable conditions so long as they are consistent with the Coastal Act and the LCP, the court found the Commission did not abuse its discretion when it imposed Conditions 1.a, 3.a, and 3.c.  The court held the Condition 3.b, however, was improperly broad and not reasonably related to achieving the LCP’s purpose. That condition required that the Lindstroms remove their home in the event a government agency deemed it a natural hazard. That condition, the court said, was poorly drafted and could have been read to require the Lindstroms to remove their home under unreasonable circumstances. The court therefore issued a writ of mandate requiring the Coastal Commission to either delete or revise and clarify the condition.

 

Bridget McDonald

Second District Invalidates EIR’s Project Description For Failing to Provide Sufficient Detail and Certainty.

General Posted by   

In Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that an EIR for a mixed-use development project proposed by Millennium Hollywood, LLC (Millennium) in the City of Los Angeles (City) violated CEQA as a matter of law, because it failed to provide an accurate, stable, and finite project description.

In 2008, Millennium filed an application—which the Court of Appeal described as detailed—with the City proposing a mixed-use development project (2008 Proposal) on 4.47 acres in multiple parcels straddling two sides of Vine Street, between Yucca Street and Hollywood Boulevard, in the Hollywood Community Plan area of the City. The 2008 Proposal described a mixed-use development with 492 residential units, a 200-unit hotel, 100,000 square feet of office space, a 35,000-square-foot sports club and spa, 11,000 square feet of commercial uses, and 34,000 square feet of food and beverage uses. In total, proposed square footage was 1,163,079. Two historic buildings on site, the Capital Records Tower and Gogerty Building, would be preserved. The development would consist of two low-rise buildings, one on each side of Vine Street, with three towers intended to “frame” the Capital Records Tower. The 2008 Proposal would have required a zone change to allow the sports club, as well as a variance to allow the proposed density. After the City informed Millennium that a variance from the General Plan Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement would also be necessary, the project was put on hold.

In 2011, Millennium filed a new application with a new project description for the same site (2011 Project). Millennium still proposed a mixed-use development with residential, hotel, and retail uses totaling 1,166,970 square feet and a FAR of 6:1. Though the same mix of uses were proposed, the 2011 Project was “designed to create an impact ‘envelope’ within which a range of development scenarios can occur.” Thus, the specific shape, size, location, use, and number of buildings to be constructed on the site were not described, other than that the existing historic buildings would be preserved. Instead, Millennium sought to enter into a development agreement with the City that would establish the permitted developable floor area, land uses, design guidelines, and development standards for the site. Additionally, the 2011 Project included a land use equivalency program (LUEP) allowing the transfer of floor area between parcels on the site. The EIR analyzed the maximum level of impacts that could occur under the development agreement, regardless of which of the several development scenarios was actually constructed in the future.

Commenters on the Draft EIR complained that the imprecise project description hindered meaningful public participation. Nevertheless, the City approved the development agreement, certified the EIR, adopted mitigation for the analyzed maximum level of impacts and adopted a statement of overriding considerations. Petitioners, Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com, Communities United for Reasonable Development, and George Abrahams (collectively, Petitioners) petitioned the Los Angeles Superior Court for a writ of mandate setting aside project approval and certification of the EIR. Petitioners alleged three causes of action relating to violations of CEQA. First, they alleged that the EIR failed to include an accurate, stable, and finite project description. The second cause of action asserted that the City abused its discretion by failing to study traffic impacts to the 101 freeway despite Caltran’s direction that the City do so. The third cause of action alleged that the City failed to consult with the California Geological Survey regarding potential seismic hazards on the site. The trial court granted the petition as to the first and second causes of action, but not the third.

On the first cause of action, the trial court found that the project description was not stable or finite, and that the use of the word “or” in a condition of approval allowed Millennium, or future developers, to choose any permitted use listed for the C2 zone in the LAMC for future development, not just the list of proposed uses in the development agreement. The trial court reasoned that, though there may be circumstances where a project description may disclose only the physical parameters and maximum potential environmental impacts, no such circumstances were present here. The trial court distinguished Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036 (Treasure Island), on the grounds that that case dealt with a site contaminated by hazardous materials, and it was unknown when cleanup of the site would be completed. The trial court noted that the development in Treasure Island included both fixed elements (including the street grid) and conceptual elements that would “likely” be subject to supplemental CEQA review. The trial court concluded that neither element was present here.

The trial court also found that, by including an ambiguous project description, the EIR impermissibly deferred part of the analysis of environmental impacts. Specifically, the trial court found that, because no specific “concept” was analyzed, the EIR did not explain how exceedance of the maximum impacts would be avoided when the project was actually designed and built; nor was additional CEQA review contemplated by either the EIR or the development agreement. The trial court determined that, without knowing the “bona fide subject” of the EIR, it would be impossible for the public and decisionmakers to accurately weigh the “environmental price tag” of the proposal and decide if the benefits outweigh that price.

The City and Millennium appealed the trial court’s decision as to the first and second cause of action, while Petitioners appealed the decision on the third cause of action. The Court of appeal, after ruling on the first cause of action, determined that it need not reach the other issues raised by the parties.

In affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeal looked to County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185 (County of Inyo), and Washoe Meadows Community v. Department of Parks and Recreation (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 277 (Washoe Meadows). The Court cited County of Inyo for the proposition that, even where an inaccurate project description does not render invalid the analysis of environmental effects, it may nevertheless violate CEQA by interfering with “intelligent public participation.” The Court found further support for this position in Washoe Meadows, where the First District held that a failure to select or identify a specific project in the Draft EIR interfered with the public’s right to participate in CEQA review.

In the case before it, the Court found that the project description “fail[ed] to describe the siting, size, mass, or appearance of any building proposed to be built at the project site” and that the proposed development regulations imposed only vague and ambiguous limits on future construction choices. The Court held that, even if the analysis of maximum impacts were adequate—despite the project description, “CEQA’s purposes go beyond an evaluation of theoretical environmental impacts.” The Court determined that the project description violated CEQA as a matter of law.

In reaching its decision, the Court distinguished South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321 (South of Market), on two grounds. First, the Court found that the only “uncertainty” at issue in South of Market was that the project description presented a choice of either a predominately office use or a predominately residential use, but the EIR did not select one or the other. Second, the Court found that the EIR in South of Market “included ‘site plans, illustrative massing, building elevations, cross-sections and representative floor plans for both options.”’ Because the EIR before it did not include these “technical characteristics” of the project, the Court concluded that it failed to comply with CEQA’s mandates. The Court also largely agreed with basis for the trial court’s distinguishing of Treasure Island, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, finding that no unusual circumstances were present in this case, and that future planning and development of the project would not be subject to additional environmental review. Lastly, the Court found the violation to be prejudicial because it interfered with public participation.

As stated above, the Court determined that it need not address the other issues raised by the parties. The Court dismissed an argument that Public Resources Code section 21168.9 required them to rule on each issue raised in a CEQA appeal. The Court found that section applied only to the trial court’s order on remand, which is to address only those mandates from the Court of Appeal that are necessary to comply with CEQA. The Court found that the trial court’s judgment was correct on at least one ground, so it was affirmed.

Nathan George

California Supreme Court Holds Adoption of Zoning Ordinance for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries is a “Project” Subject to CEQA

General Posted by   

On August 19, 2019, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1171, in which the Court unanimously held that the City of San Diego’s adoption of a zoning ordinance for medical marijuana dispensaries is a “project” subject to CEQA. Although the Court agreed with the Fourth District Court of Appeal and the city in rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the adoption of a zoning ordinance is always a project, as a matter of law, under Public Resources Code section 21080, the Court reasoned that the adoption of the ordinance at issue was nonetheless the type of activity which, by its general nature, “is capable of causing a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” As such, the Court held, it is a “project” subject to CEQA.

Background

In 2014, the city adopted a zoning ordinance authorizing the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries in the city and imposing various restrictions on their location and operation. The ordinance specified zones where dispensaries are permitted, included a cap on the number of dispensaries in any one district, restricted their proximity to sensitive uses, and imposed basic conditions on lighting, security, and hours of operation. At the time the ordinance was proposed, the city determined that the adoption of the ordinance did not constitute a “project” for purposes of CEQA. The city, therefore, did not conduct any environmental review prior to adopting the ordinance.

Following the city’s adoption of the ordinance, petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the city’s decision not to conduct CEQA review. In the trial court, petitioner argued that the adoption of the ordinance should have been found to be a project under Public Resources Code section 21065, which defines a “project” as any activity undertaken or funded by, or requiring the approval of, a public agency that “may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” According to the petitioner, the ordinance had the potential, among other effects, to cause increased vehicle traffic across the city, increase user cultivation, and concentrate dispensary development-related impacts in certain areas. The trial court rejected petitioner’s arguments and upheld the city’s decision, finding the petitioner’s claims were unsupported by evidence in the record.

On appeal, petitioner reiterated its argument regarding the potential to cause physical changes in the environment, and further argued that the adoption of the zoning ordinance was a project as a matter of law under Public Resources Code section 21080. Section 21080 states that CEQA “shall apply to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but not limited to, the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances …” Pointing to this language, petitioner argued that the enactment of a zoning ordinance is automatically a project under CEQA, regardless of the potential for environmental change. Petitioner’s argument was based in part on the Third District’s decision in Rominger v. County of Colusa (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 690, where the court held that the county’s approval of a tentative map—another activity expressly listed in section 21080—was a project as a matter of law.

Notwithstanding Rominger, the Fourth District Court of Appeal rejected both of petitioner’s arguments, holding that the enactment of a zoning ordinance is subject to the same “project” test as any other activity under Public Resources Code section 21065. Further, the court found no error in the city’s conclusion that the zoning ordinance was not a project because it lacked the potential to cause a physical change in the environment. According to the Fourth District, the potential environmental effects raised by the petitioner were unsupported by the record and too speculative to establish a potential to physically change the environment.

The Supreme Court’s Review

Seeking to resolve the split between the Fourth District’s decision and Rominger, the Supreme Court granted review to address two issues: (1) whether, under Public Resources Code section 21080, a public agency’s enactment of a zoning ordinance is always project under CEQA, as a matter of law; and (2) whether the enactment of the city’s zoning ordinance was a “project” under section 21065.

The Court began its analysis by placing the dispute into context. As the Court explained, CEQA proceeds by way of a three-step process or “decision tree.” First, the lead agency must determine whether the proposed activity is a “project” subject to CEQA at all. Second, assuming CEQA applies, the agency must determine whether the project qualifies for one or more of the many CEQA exemptions. Third, assuming no exemptions apply, the agency must undertake environmental review, namely, preparation of an initial study and a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or an environmental impact report. At issue here was the very first step of the process—the city’s determination that the adoption of the zoning ordinance was not a “project” subject to CEQA at all.

Turning to the first issue, the Court agreed with the Fourth District that Public Resources Code section 21080 does not dictate the result as a matter of law. Engaging in a statutory interpretation analysis, the Court reasoned that while section 21080 is ambiguous when read in isolation, the Legislature’s use of the statutorily defined term “project” in that section must be read to incorporate the definition of “project” in section 21065. Accordingly, the language in PRC section 21080 that CEQA “shall apply to discretionary projects” must be read to provide that CEQA applies to activities that are both (1) discretionary; and (2) meet the definition of a “project” in section 20165. According to the Court, the specific activities listed in section 21080 are merely generic examples of the type of activities approved or carried out by public agencies to which CEQA could apply, however, the mere listing of an activity in that section does not supplant the potential “physical change” analysis required under section 21065.

The Court found further support for its reading of section 21080 in the definition of the term “project” in CEQA Guidelines section 15378, which makes clear the enactment of a zoning ordinance is merely an example of an activity undertaken by public agencies; policy considerations against subjecting activities to CEQA where there is no potential to effect the environment; and the legislative history of section 21065 revealing the Legislature’s intent to narrow CEQA’s application to activities posing a possibility of an environmental effect.

The Court also refuted the notion that its reading of the statute renders section 21080 mere surplusage, noting that the significance of section 21080 is that it states, in the affirmative, the additional requirement that projects must be “discretionary” for CEQA to apply.

After concluding that the adoption of a zoning ordinance is not a project as a matter of law, the Court turned to whether the adoption of the dispensary ordinance in this case was nonetheless a project subject to CEQA under Public Resources Code section 21065. The Court disagreed with the appellate court and answered the question in the affirmative.

As the Court explained, the governing decision for the “project” inquiry is Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372. In that case, the Court observed, “Whether an activity constitutes a project subject to CEQA is a categorical question respecting whether the activity is of a general kind with which CEQA is concerned, without regard to whether the activity will actually have environmental impact.” In other words, an agency’s task in determining whether a proposed activity is a project is to determine if, by its general nature, the activity is capable of a causing physical change in the environment, without regard to whether actual effects will occur under the circumstances.

Applying Muzzy Ranch, the Court held that the city erred in determining that the adoption of the zoning ordinance was not a project subject to CEQA. The Court noted that the ordinance would permit the establishment of a sizable number of new businesses, which could foreseeably result in new construction. Furthermore, the ordinance could cause changes in vehicle traffic patterns as a result of customers, employees, and suppliers. Finally, the Court explained, the necessary casual connection between the ordinance and these effects was satisfied because the adoption of the ordinance was “an essential step culminating in action . . . which may affect the environment.” For these reasons, the Court held, the adoption of the zoning ordinance was a “project” subject to CEQA.

Collin McCarthy

In First Opinion Addressing a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment, the Third District Upholds the City of Sacramento’s Approval of an Infill Project

General Posted by   

In Sacramentans for Fair Planning v. City of Sacramento (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 698, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the City of Sacramento’s reliance on a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA), a relatively new method for conducting streamlined CEQA review for certain projects that help the state meet its greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21155.2, subd. (b).) The decision is the first published opinion addressing the propriety of an SCEA. The court held that the transit priority project at issue was consistent with the region’s sustainable communities strategy and therefore the City’s reliance on the SCEA complied with CEQA.

The court also upheld the City’s reliance on a unique provision in its general plan that allows the City to approve projects that are inconsistent with the City height and density limits if the projects offer significant community benefits.

Background

The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) was created to integrate transportation and land use planning to reduce GHG emissions. SB 375 directed the California Air Resources Board to develop regional targets for automobiles and light trucks to reduce emissions. In turn, federally designated metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) must now include a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) in their regional transportation plans/ metropolitan transportation plan (MTP). (Gov. Code, § 65080, subd. (b)(2)(B).) MTP/SCSs direct the location and intensity of future land use developments on a regional scale to reduce vehicle emissions. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is the MPO for the Sacramento area. SACOG adopted an MTP/SCS for the region in 2012 and certified an EIR for the MTP/SCS at that time.

Under SB 375, the mandated reductions may be achieved through a variety of methods, including “smart growth planning.” The Legislature determined that one type of development that can help reduce vehicular GHG emissions is a “transit priority project.” This type of project contains at least 50% residential use, has a minimum density of 20 units per acre, and is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop.

To boost development of transit priority projects, SB 375 allows for streamlined CEQA review through an SCEA if the project: (1) is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area’ in the strategy; and (2) incorporates all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, and criteria set forth in the prior applicable environmental impact reports’ and which were adopted as findings. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21155, subd. (a), 21155.2, subds. (a), (b).)

The “Yamanee” project at issue in Sacramentans is a proposed 15-story multi-use building made up of one floor of commercial space, three levels of parking, residential condominiums on 10 floors, and one floor of residential amenities. The building is proposed to be located near public transit in Sacramento’s growing “Midtown” area, adjacent to the City’s downtown. The project is located in the MTP/SCS’s central city subarea of a “Center and Corridor Community.” Under the MTP/SCS, Center and Corridor Communities are typically higher density and more mixed than surrounding land uses. SAGOG organized the MTP/SCS in such a way that policies for reducing GHG emissions were embedded in the MTP/SCS’s growth forecast assumptions. Thus, projects that are consistent with the MTP/SCS’s growth forecasts are automatically consistent with the MTP/SCS’s emission-reduction policies.

The City determined that the Yamanee project qualified as a transit priority project and that the project was consistent with the general land use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies in the MTP/SCS. Therefore, the City used an SCEA to review the project under CEQA. The SCEA explained that, as a transit priority project, the Yamanee project would increase housing options near high quality transit and reduce vehicle miles traveled. It also explained that the project is consistent with the MTP/SCS’s forecast of low to high-density residential and mixed uses in the center subarea of the Center and Corridor Community.

The City Council upheld the City planning and design commission’s approval of the project and rejected the petitioner’s appeal of that decision. The petitioner sought a writ of mandate in the superior court, claiming that the City’s approval of the project violated CEQA and the planning and zoning law. The superior court denied the petition and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

CEQA

The Court of Appeal rejected the petitioner’s claim that the City erred by relying on SACOG’s MTP/SCS to justify using an SCEA. The petitioner argued that because the MTP/SCS lacked specific density and building intensity standards, the City could not rely on it as a basis for an SCEA. Further, claimed the petitioner, the MTP/SCS undermines the City’s general plan because it treats the City’s center as “higher density,” whereas the general plan sets forth a more nuanced approach under which building intensities and densities increase the closer a development gets to the downtown. These arguments, concluded the court, were premised on a misunderstanding of the MTP/SCS’s role. An MTP/SCS does not regulate land use. The purpose of an MTP/SCS is to establish a regional development pattern, not site-specific zoning. SB 375 authorized the City to review the project in an SCEA if the project was consistent with the regional strategy. Because it was, the city was allowed to rely on an SCEA. Although, as the petitioner contended, reliance on an SCEA could mean that certain projects receive less environmental review than traditionally required under CEQA, the court advised that the petitioner should take this concern to the Legislature, not the courts.

The court also rejected the petitioner’s claim that the City erred by relying on previous EIRs for the general plan and MTP/SCS to avoid analyzing the project’s cumulative impacts. In particular, the petitioner claimed that streamlined review was inappropriate in this case because no prior environmental analysis had considered the cumulative impacts of high-rise development in Sacramento’s midtown. The court explained that CEQA required the City to prepare an initial study (IS) before drafting the SCEA. The City’s IS for the project concluded that cumulative effects had, in fact, been adequately addressed and mitigated, and therefore did not need to be analyzed further in the SCEA. Additionally, the project included all applicable mitigation measures recommended in the prior EIRs. The petitioner failed to show that the City’s analysis was not factually supported. Accordingly, the City did not err by relying on prior cumulative impact analyses.

Planning and Zoning Law

The development proposed by the project is denser and more intense than what would ordinarily be allowed under the City’s general plan and zoning code. The City approved the project, however, under a provision in its general plan that allows the City to approve more intensive development when a project’s “significant community benefits” outweigh strict adherence to the density and intensity requirements. The City determined that the project would have several significant community benefits, including helping the City to achieve its goal of building 10,000 new residential units in the central city by 2025, and reducing dependency on personal vehicles. These, and other benefits, outweighed strict adherence to the City’s density and intensity limits.

The petitioner argued that the City’s decision to allow the Project to exceed the general plan and zoning code’s intensity and density standards constituted unlawful “spot zoning.” The court explained that spot zoning occurs where a small parcel is restricted and given fewer rights than the surrounding property (e.g., when a lot is restricted to residential uses even though it is surrounded by exclusively commercial uses). This case, explained the court, is not a spot-zoning case in that the property was not given lesser development rights than its neighboring parcels. The petitioner argued that the neighboring parcels had, in fact, been given lesser development rights through the City’s approval of the project, but there was no evidence in the record that any neighboring owner sought and was denied permission to develop at a greater intensity or that the City would arbitrarily refuse to consider an application for such development.

The petitioner also argued that the phrase “significant community benefit” as used in the City’s general plan was unconstitutionally vague. The court disagreed, explaining that zoning standards in California are required to be made “‘in accord with the general health, safety, and welfare standard,’” and that the phrase “significant community benefit” was no less vague than the phrase “general welfare.” Additionally, held the court, the phrase “significant community benefit” provides sufficient direction to implement the policy in accordance with the general plan.

The court also held that the City had articulated a rational basis for the policy allowing the City to waive the density and intensity standards for projects that provide significant community benefits, which is all that the Constitution required.

Conclusion

In this case, the City of Sacramento successfully employed CEQA’s streamlined provisions for transit priority projects to expedite and simplify its environmental review of an infill project that will help the City meet its aggressive new housing goal and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The City’s general plan allowed the City to approve the project because the project would provide significant public benefits, even though the project is inconsistent with the general plan and zoning code’s density and intensity standards. As California continues to combat the dual threats of a housing shortage and climate change, cities and counties are likely to increasingly rely on streamlined approaches to the approval process for mixed-use projects near public transit.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal Rejects Community Service District’s Attempt to Exempt Itself from City’s Zoning Ordinance

General Posted by   

In City of Hesperia v. Lake Arrowhead Community Services District (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 734, the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s conclusion that the Lake Arrowhead Community Services District’s (“District”) Solar Project is not exempt from – and must comply with – the City of Hesperia’s (“City”) zoning ordinances.

The District, which is only authorized to provide water and wastewater treatment services within its boundaries, planned to develop a solar energy project on property zoned as “Rural Residential” that it owns within the City. The City’s Municipal Code dictates that solar farms are only permitted in nonresidential and nonagricultural areas with the approval of a conditional use permit by the City’s planning commission.

Pursuant to CEQA, the District prepared and circulated an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for comments on the Solar Project in May 2015. The City commented that the Project required a general plan amendment and zone change to be filed with the City and that the Project would violate the City’s Municipal Code, which prohibits solar farms within 660 feet of agriculturally designated property. Government Code section 53091 requires that local agencies comply with the building and zoning ordinances of the county or city in which they are located.

On December 15, 2015, the District’s Board adopted a resolution that purported to render the City’s zoning ordinances inapplicable to the Solar Project. In passing this resolution, the District relied on Government Code section 53091, subdivision (e), an absolute zoning exemption for electrical energy generation facilities, and Government Code section 53096, a qualified zoning exemption for projects with no feasible alternative location.

The City subsequently filed a lawsuit contending that the Solar Project is beyond the scope of the District’s authority and is subject to the City’s zoning ordinances. The court agreed with the City and held that the Project was not exempt under either of these sections.

Section 53091, subdivision (e)

Section 53091, subdivision (e), of the Government Code states that the “[z]oning ordinances of a county or city shall not apply to the location or construction of facilities . . . for the production or generation of electrical energy.” The court explained that while the section 53091, subdivision (e), exemption does apply to the Project, the same section also includes an exception to the exemption that applies to the Project and negates the exemption. The exception to the exemption provides that “[z]oning ordinances of a county or city shall apply to the location or construction of facilities for storage or transmission of electrical energy by a local agency, if the zoning ordinances make provision for those facilities.” Here, the court agreed with the City that the Solar Project involves the transmission of electrical energy and is therefore not exempt from the City’s zoning ordinances under section 53091, subdivision (e).

In reaching this conclusion, the court was influenced by the fact that the District had earlier entered into an agreement with Southern California Edison Company, which stated that the District “will export electrical energy to the grid” and be responsible for “delivery of electricity.” The dictionary definitions for “export” and “delivery” are consistent with the “transmit” terminology in the exception. The court rejected the District’s argument that using the plain meaning of the word “transmission” would prohibit any electrical energy facility from qualifying for a zoning exemption because section 53096, subdivision (a) (discussed below), provides a qualified exemption for energy facilities under certain conditions.

Section 53096, subdivision (a)

Government Code section 53096, subdivision (a), provides a qualified exemption from zoning ordinances for facilities related to the transmission of electrical energy upon a four-fifths vote by the agency’s board that there is no feasible alternative to the proposed use. Here, the District’s Board determined that it was not feasible to install the Solar Project at any alternative locations, as doing so “would result in a significant cost increase, measurable power loss, and project delay.”

The court concluded that while the Board followed the proper procedural requirements of the qualified exemption, the administrative record did not contain substantial evidence to support the District’s findings. The City successfully demonstrated to the court that the administrative record did not include evidence of “economic, environmental, social, or technological factors associated with an alternative location.” The court was persuaded by the fact that the Board failed to consider any alternative location for the Solar Project in reaching its discretionary determination under section 53096, subdivision (a).

In determining the definition of “feasible” for purposes of this exemption, the court relied on case law related to CEQA’s definition for feasible alternatives and mitigation measures. The court cited Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, which dictates that the consideration of feasible alternatives is governed by the “rule of reason” – where alternatives must be analyzed if doing so is “necessary to permit a reasoned choice.” Here, the court concluded that the “any ‘rule of reason’ requires consideration of alternatives.” (Italics original.) The District therefore needed to provide evidence that it considered an alternative location and “economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” related to the alternative, but it merely provided evidence that the site was a “good location” for the Project. Thus, the court held that the section 53096, subdivision (a), exemption also does not apply to the Solar Project.

Second District Upholds City of Los Angeles’ Determination That EIR Not Required to Assess Population or Housing Impacts for Hotel Project on Site of Vacant Former Apartment Building

General Posted by   

In an opinion certified for partial publication on July 22, 2019, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision and held that the City of Los Angeles was not required to prepare an EIR to assess housing-related impacts for a boutique hotel project on the site of a now-vacant former apartment building. Hollywoodians Encouraging Rental Opportunities (HERO) v. City of Los Angeles (B285552; filed 6/28/19, ordered published 7/22/19) ___ Cal.App.5th___ (“HERO”).

The project at issue in HERO is a proposed 24-room boutique hotel in the Hollywood area of Los Angeles. Prior to 2013, the project site was occupied by an 18-unit apartment building that was subject to the city’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance. In 2013, the owner filed a notice of intent to withdraw all 18 units from the rental housing market pursuant to the Ellis Act in order to pursue construction of a condominium project on the site. While the condo project was later abandoned due to a lack of financing, the building never returned to the rental market and remained uninhabited for nearly two years.

In July 2015, the owner of the property submitted a new application to the city, this time seeking to convert the site into a 24-room hotel. The city prepared an initial study for the hotel project. The initial study concluded that, with mitigation, the project would have no significant environmental impacts. With respect to population and housing impacts specifically, the initial study concluded that the project would not displace housing units or residents because the apartments had been withdrawn from the rental market and the building was uninhabited. Accordingly, the zoning administrator adopted a mitigated negative declaration (MND) and approved the project. The zoning administrator’s decision was subsequently affirmed following appeals to the area planning commission and city council.
Following the city council’s approval of the project, three petitioners, including a resident of a nearby building, a former tenant of the apartments, and HERO, filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the approval. The thrust of the petitioners’ CEQA claims was that the city was required to prepare an EIR to analyze the project’s direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the supply of rent-stabilized housing and the displacement of tenants. The trial court denied the petition in full, holding that the city properly concluded the project would have no impact on housing or population because the rental units had been removed from the market and vacated long before the hotel project was proposed. The trial court further ruled that, aside from the baseline issue, the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the project would have a significant effect on the physical environment, and not just socioeconomic impacts.

On appeal, the petitioners’ primary argument was that the city was required to prepare EIR because substantial evidence supported a fair argument that the cumulative effect of the project and other similar projects would be to eliminate rent-stabilized housing units in Hollywood and displace residents that depend on such housing. The Court of Appeal rejected the petitioners’ argument, holding that the proper baseline against which the project’s impact must be assessed is a vacant building, not a tenant-occupied rental property. As the court explained, at the time the environmental analysis for the project commenced in 2015, the property did not include rent-stabilized apartments. Rather, as noted above, the all units had been withdrawn from the rental market in 2013 and the building sat uninhabited since that time. Because these events occurred prior to the project proposal and initial study, the court explained, they were not attributable to the project. Thus, the city properly determined an EIR was not required to analyze such impacts on housing and population. Moreover, the court added, there was nothing in the record to suggest that the 2015 hotel project was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial condominium project for which the apartments were originally removed from the rental market, and there was no evidence that the city was attempting to chop up or evade CEQA review.

Turning to the issue of cumulative impacts, the court held that the city was not required to prepare an EIR to inquire into the cumulative impact of the project on housing and population. Because there was no substantial evidence of a project-specific potentially significant impact, the court explained, the city properly determined that the effects of the project would not be cumulatively considerable and no further analysis was required.

Remy Moose Manley partner Sabrina Teller and associate Christina Berglund represented the Real Parties in Interest in this matter.

Third District Awards Costs and Fees Where Partially Successful Plaintiffs Obtained Primary Litigation Objective, Justifying Entitlement to Recovery

General Posted by   

In 2015, Friends of Spring Street (Friends) filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint against Nevada City challenging the city’s determination that Mollie Poe and Declan Hickey (Real Parties) had the right to reopen a bed and breakfast (B&B) in a residential area. After the court ruled against the City on one of five issues raised, this case, Friends of Spring Street v. Nevada City (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1092, followed.

The Original Lawsuit

In 1991 Juneus and Jan Kendall obtained a conditional use permit to operate a B&B in a residential neighborhood. Three years later, the city’s voters passed an initiative, Measure G, which repealed the zoning code provision that allowed for B&Bs in residential zones. The Kendalls continued operation of their B&B until 2002 and sold the property in 2004. From 2002 until 2013, the property was used as a private residence, but the business license was renewed and paid every year.

The Real Parties purchased the property in 2013 and in 2014 applied to resume the conditional use permit to operate the property as a B&B. The city’s planning commission denied the request, concluding that the grandfathered rights to operate a B&B terminated when the use was discontinued. Real Parties appealed to the city council, arguing for the first time that the operation of a B&B was never a nonconforming use, and therefore the conditional use permit was still valid. The city council granted the appeal and vacated the planning commission’s decision.

In granting the appeal, the city council found that Measure G was intended to limit new B&Bs in residential zones, but did not address termination of existing inns. Following the council’s decision, Friends of Spring Street filed a lawsuit challenging the city’s determination, arguing that Measure G had rendered pre-existing B&Bs in residential areas nonconforming.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal held that the city was incorrect, and the passage of Measure G had in fact rendered the B&B nonconforming. The Real Parties, therefore, were not entitled to resume the use as a matter of right. The Court of Appeal directed the trial court to vacate its denial of the petition for writ of mandate, enter an order granting the writ mandate, and order the city to set aside its granting of the appeal of the planning commission’s denial of the Real Parties’ request (“Friends I”).

Following the decision in Friends I, Friends of Spring Street filed a memorandum of cost and a motion for attorney fees. In response, the City and Real Parties filed motions to strike and oppose the memorandum of costs and motion for attorney fees. This decision is the outcome of those requests.

Friends’ Request for Costs

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, where, like here, a party recovers non-monetary relief, the trial court has the discretion to identify the “prevailing party.” The question for the court is whether the party succeeded at a practical level by realizing its litigation objectives, and whether the action yielded the primary relief sought. In this case, the trial court denied the request for costs, reasoning that: (i) there was no prevailing party, and (ii) Friends did not obtain any practical result that justified the entitlement to costs. The trial court also noted that Friends only obtained relief on one of five causes of action.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. The court noted that the failure to succeed on all but one cause of action is not sufficient reason to deny a party fees and costs. The court also explained that Friends had realized its primary litigation objective when the court ordered the city to set aside its granting of the appeal of the planning commission decision. Contrary to the city’s argument, the court said it had not decided a “jurisdictional issue,” but rather had made a substantive decision on the merits when it determined the meaning and application of Measure G. As a result of its decision, the planning commission’s denial of the Real Parties’ application to re-commence B&B operations remained intact. The court concluded that Friends, therefore, achieved the practical result sought and was thus entitled to collect costs.

Friends’ Motion for Attorney Fees

Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the “private attorney general doctrine,” provides an exception to the general rule that parties in litigation pay their own attorney’s fees. Under section 1021.5, a court may award fees to a successful party where a significant benefit has been conferred on the general public, and the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement makes the award appropriate. The trial court concluded that Friends’ action did not enforce an important right and public interest.

Again, the Court of Appeal disagreed. The court pointed to La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Assn. of Hollywood v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1149, 1159-1160, noting that zoning laws are a “vital public interest” and are important to preserve the integrity of a general plan. Here, the court concluded, Friends’ action preserved the integrity of the city’s zoning regulations imposed by Measure G. And, the court noted, the public interest in this case was even greater than in La Mirada because the city’s residents voted to implement Measure G.

First District Court of Appeal Upholds EIR for Mixed-Use Development Project

General Posted by   

In the first published decision to apply the standard of review articulated by the Supreme Court in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch), the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision upholding an EIR for a mixed-use development project in South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321.

The project at issue is a mixed-use development that covers four acres of downtown San Francisco and seeks to provide office, retail, cultural, educational, and open-space uses for the property, to support the region’s technology industry and offer spaces for coworking, media, arts, and small-scale urban manufacturing. The city certified an EIR, which described two options for the project—an “office scheme” and a “residential scheme.” The office scheme had a larger building envelope and higher density than the residential scheme but all other project components were the same and the overall square footage was substantially similar. Several community organizations raised a variety of claims challenging the environmental review. The trial court denied relief and the petitioners appealed.

Applying the three “basic principles” set forth by the Supreme Court in Friant Ranch regarding the standard of review for the adequacy of an EIR, the First District held the EIR was legally adequate.

The court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the project description was inadequate because it presented multiple possible projects. The court found that the EIR described one project—a mixed use development involving retention or demolition of existing buildings and construction of new buildings—with two options for different allocations of residential and office units. The court also rejected petitioners’ argument that the final EIR adopted a “revised” project that was a variant of another alternative identified in the draft EIR—emphasizing that the CEQA reporting process is not designed to freeze the ultimate proposal in the precise mold of the initial project, but to allow consideration of other options that may be less harmful to the environment.

Petitioners alleged that the cumulative impacts analysis was flawed because the EIR used an outdated 2012 project list, developed during the “Great Recession,” which did not reflect a more recent increase in development. The court noted the petitioners did not point to any evidence to establish that the project list was defective or misleading or that the city had ignored foreseeable projects. Accordingly, the court held that the petitioners had not met their burden of proving the EIR’s cumulative impacts analysis was not supported by substantial evidence.

With respect to traffic, the petitioners argued the EIR was inadequate because it failed to (1) include all impacted intersections, (2) consider the impact of the Safer Market Street Plan (SMSP), and (3) adequately evaluate community-proposed mitigation measures and alternatives. The court rejected each argument in turn. First, the court found that the EIR’s explanation for selecting certain intersections and excluding others and the related analysis was supported by substantial evidence. The court further held that the city did not need to include the SMSP in the EIR because it was not reasonably foreseeable when the city initiated the EIR, nor was there evidence that the SMSP would have an adverse impact on traffic and circulation related to the project. Lastly, the court deferred to the city’s selection of alternatives because the petitioners had failed to meet their burden to show the nine alternatives evaluated in the EIR were “manifestly unreasonable.” Similarly, the court found the petitioners had failed to meet their burden to demonstrate their proposed alternatives were feasible and met most of the project objectives.

In addressing wind impacts, an argument petitioners failed to exhaust, the court found such impacts were appropriately addressed in the EIR. The court reasoned an alternative configuration was not required under the city’s comfort criterion for wind speed impacts because the exceedance of the comfort criterion did not establish significant impacts for CEQA purposes.

The court also rejected an argument that the project failed to provide onsite open space because the EIR explained that the project provided more space than the city code required and the impact related to demand on existing parks and open spaces would be less than significant.

The court further upheld the EIR’s shade and shadow analysis, finding no evidence in the record to support that sunlight on a park is not a “special and rare resource” warranting “special emphasis” under CEQA Guidelines section 15125.

The court also held that the city had made a good faith effort to discuss inconsistencies with the applicable general plans, noting that CEQA does not “mandate perfection.”

Finally, the petitioners claimed that the statement of overriding considerations was invalid because the city improperly considered the benefits of the project before considering feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The court disagreed, emphasizing that the project was modified to substantially conform to the identified environmentally superior alternative and stating that the revised project would not have been adopted if there had been no consideration of mitigation measures or alternatives.

Third District Awards Costs and Fees Where Partially Successful Plaintiffs Obtained Primary Litigation Objective, Justifying Entitlement to Recovery

General Posted by   

In 2015, Friends of Spring Street (Friends) filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint against Nevada City challenging the city’s determination that Mollie Poe and Declan Hickey (Real Parties) had the right to reopen a bed and breakfast (B&B) in a residential area. After the court ruled against the City on one of five issues raised, this case, Friends of Spring Street v. Nevada City, 33 Cal.App.5th 1092, followed.

The Original Lawsuit

In 1991 Juneus and Jan Kendall obtained a conditional use permit to operate a B&B in a residential neighborhood. Three years later, the city’s voters passed an initiative, Measure G, which repealed the zoning code provision that allowed for B&Bs in residential zones. The Kendalls continued operation of their B&B until 2002 and sold the property in 2004. From 2002 until 2013, the property was used as a private residence, but the business license was renewed and paid every year.

The Real Parties purchased the property in 2013 and in 2014 applied to resume the conditional use permit to operate the property as a B&B. The city’s planning commission denied the request, concluding that the grandfathered rights to operate a B&B terminated when the use was discontinued. Real Parties appealed to the city council, arguing for the first time that the operation of a B&B was never a nonconforming use, and therefore the conditional use permit was still valid. The city council granted the appeal and vacated the planning commission’s decision.

In granting the appeal, the city council found that Measure G was intended to limit new B&Bs in residential zones, but did not address termination of existing inns. Following the council’s decision, Friends of Spring Street filed a lawsuit challenging the city’s determination, arguing that Measure G had rendered pre-existing B&Bs in residential areas nonconforming.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal held that the city was incorrect, and the passage of Measure G had in fact rendered the B&B nonconforming. The Real Parties, therefore, were not entitled to resume the use as a matter of right. The Court of Appeal directed the trial court to vacate its denial of the petition for writ of mandate, enter an order granting the writ mandate, and order the city to set aside its granting of the appeal of the planning commission’s denial of the Real Parties’ request (“Friends I”).

Following the decision in Friends I, Friends of Spring Street filed a memorandum of cost and a motion for attorney fees. In response, the City and Real Parties filed motions to strike and oppose the memorandum of costs and motion for attorney fees. This decision is the outcome of those requests.

Friends’ Request for Costs

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, where, like here, a party recovers non-monetary relief, the trial court has the discretion to identify the “prevailing party.” The question for the court is whether the party succeeded at a practical level by realizing its litigation objectives, and whether the action yielded the primary relief sought. In this case, the trial court denied the request for costs, reasoning that: (i) there was no prevailing party, and (ii) Friends did not obtain any practical result that justified the entitlement to costs. The trial court also noted that Friends only obtained relief on one of five causes of action.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. The court noted that the failure to succeed on all but one cause of action is not sufficient reason to deny a party fees and costs. The court also explained that Friends had realized its primary litigation objective when the court ordered the city to set aside its granting of the appeal of the planning commission decision. Contrary to the city’s argument, the court said it had not decided a “jurisdictional issue,” but rather had made a substantive decision on the merits when it determined the meaning and application of Measure G. As a result of its decision, the planning commission’s denial of the Real Parties’ application to re-commence B&B operations remained intact. The court concluded that Friends, therefore, achieved the practical result sought and was thus entitled to collect costs.

Friends’ Motion for Attorney Fees

Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the “private attorney general doctrine,” provides an exception to the general rule that parties in litigation pay their own attorney’s fees. Under section 1021.5, a court may award fees to a successful party where a significant benefit has been conferred on the general public, and the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement makes the award appropriate. The trial court concluded that Friends’ action did not enforce an important right and public interest.

Again, the Court of Appeal disagreed. The court pointed to La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Assn. of Hollywood v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1149, 1159-1160, noting that zoning laws are a “vital public interest” and are important to preserve the integrity of a general plan. Here, the court concluded, Friends’ action preserved the integrity of the city’s zoning regulations imposed by Measure G. And, the court noted, the public interest in this case was even greater than in La Mirada because the city’s residents voted to implement Measure G.

1314151617