Source: https://www.thomaslaw.com/blog/category/zoning-planning-law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 15:55:42+00:00

Document:
California State Senator Scott Wiener (D–San Francisco) has introduced Senate Bill 50, the More Housing Opportunity, Mobility, Equity, and Stability (“HOMES”) Act, which establishes the “equitable communities incentive.” This incentive would allow developers to bypass certain local zoning restrictions when building multi-family units that are near transit or employment opportunities in exchange for allocating a portion of the units as affordable.
The Bill exempts multi-family developments from specified zoning restrictions if the project is located either (a) within a half mile of a rail transit station; (b) within a quarter-mile of a high-frequency bus stop; or (c) within a “job-rich” neighborhood. In these special zones, parking minimums would be sharply reduced and zoning codes could not impose height limits lower than 45 or 55 feet, depending on local factors. In exchange, developers who use this incentive will be required to designate an as-yet-undefined portion of new units as affordable housing.
While recent housing policy employs the term “transit-rich” neighborhood, SB 50 adds the concept of a “job-rich” neighborhood. This is defined as a “residential development within an area identified by the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Office of Planning and Research, based on indicators such as proximity to jobs, high area median income relative to the relevant region, and high-quality public schools.” In short, a “job-rich” neighborhood is a residential area with a short commute to jobs, high median incomes, and superior schools. This marks an effort to push development into areas that may have previously resisted it by not being “transit-rich” neighborhoods.
Wiener reasons that existing voluntary programs are not strong enough; they allow cities to evade state housing production goals, which causes rent prices to rise beyond affordable levels. Supporters of SB 50 expect that it will increase the pace of construction and add millions of units to help relieve the State’s housing crisis, a key goal for Governor-elect Gavin Newsom. Mayors from many of California’s largest cities have already indicated their support, including San Francisco Mayor London Breed, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaff, and Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg.
Senate Bills 5 and 6, proposed by State Senators James Beall (D –San Jose) and Michael McGuire (D –Healdsburg), appear to be aimed at getting ahead of SB 50’s spur for high-density housing by reviving tax increment financing for housing development near jobs and transit. That approach, using a portion of property tax growth for housing, was employed by more than 400 redevelopment agencies before Governor Jerry Brown and then-State Senator Darrell Steinberg eliminated it in 2011. According to the Senators, SB 50 is too rigid, communities need flexibility to relieve the housing crisis. In response to such concerns, SB 50 allows economically vulnerable communities to obtain a delay in implementing the zoning changes.
The biggest short-term impact of SB 50 will likely be felt in neighborhoods that are already gentrifying and have a significant amount of housing turnover. Lots with owner-occupied, single-family homes that may have been “flipped” will now be bought by developers who will use the lot to build apartments.
In High Sierra Rural Alliance v. County of Plumas (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 102, the Third District Court of Appeal held a general plan update and EIR were valid where evidence in the record supported the County of Plumas’ (County) determination that there was no “reasonably foreseeable development” outside the planning area. The Court also held that adding building intensity standards and a comprehensive map to the EIR did not require recirculation after close of the comment period where the specific zones were not likely to be developed and the map information was otherwise available during the public comment period.
The County certified a final EIR and approved a general plan update (Project) in December 2013. The update focused on new population growth and housing construction in the “planning area” in order to preclude urban sprawl and degradation of natural resources. The planning area boundary encompassed the existing developed land area and the potential expansion area directly surrounding it. In contrast, rural areas were those “defined as having little to no public infrastructure and services.” High Sierra Rural Alliance (High Sierra) filed suit alleging that the County violated CEQA by failing to consider growth and subdivision development outside the planning area and failing to recirculate the final EIR once adding maps and building intensity standards after the close of the public comment period.
The trial court held that the EIR was a “reasonably crafted…first-tier environmental document that assesses and documents broad environmental impacts of a program with the understanding that a more detailed site-specific review may be required to assess future projects.” Further, substantial evidence supported that the County’s policies and mitigation measures contained in the EIR were sufficient to reduce the severity of any environmental impacts of future projects. Lastly, the addition of building intensity standards and cumulative maps, while possibly in error, was not prejudicial error under CEQA meriting recirculation. High Sierra timely appealed.
The Appellate Court confirmed that its role is not to determine “the correctness of the EIR’s environmental conclusion, but only its sufficiency as an informative document.” Applying these principles, the Court affirmed the judgment.
The Court first addressed High Sierra’s claim that the EIR was functionally deficient for failing to assess the impacts of development, especially subdivision development, outside of the planning area. The Court clarified that CEQA only required the County to address “reasonably foreseeable development” within the County. It is of no consequence to the Court’s determination if this excludes rural areas within the County.
The record showed that the County consulted population and economic data from the Department of Finance and CalTrans and determined that the County growth rate over the planning period would be minimal. This data supported the County’s determination that all reasonably foreseeable growth was to occur almost exclusively in the planning area. Further, sections of the general plan specifically provided restrictions on development in rural areas by requiring adequate, independent fire protection for each new development. Finally, the EIR specifically provided that the minimal amount of development that may occur will be best addressed in a site-specific manner. Thus, the EIR was a proper first-tier environmental document. The Court held that the County adequately addressed development outside of the planning area.
High Sierra alleged that the County violated CEQA by failing to recirculate the EIR after adding maps and building intensity standards to the final EIR. The Court held that evidence in the record showed that the addition of comprehensive maps to the final EIR was not “significant new information” as the public had access to maps with land use designations for the County throughout the comment period. Further, the addition of building intensity standards for certain rural zones did not constitute “significant new information” where the additions did not change the scope of the Project. Also, the record supported a finding that even fewer structures in those zones would be built during the planning period than the small number in the past decade. Thus, the building intensity standards were nearly inconsequential and not “significant.” Considering these findings, the Court held that the scope of the Project did not change between the draft EIR and final EIR in a manner that requires recirculation.
The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and upheld the EIR.
A general plan EIR is only required to address “reasonably foreseeable development,” supported by evidence in the record, outside of the planning area to be sufficient under CEQA.
“Significant new information” meriting recirculation of an EIR does not include maps whose information was available elsewhere during the comment period nor standards that did not change the scope of the project.
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research is accepting comments on a revised Environmental Justice Chapter in the General Plan Guidelines until Thursday, December 20. Senate Bill 1000, proposed by California State Senator Connie Leyva (D –Chino), requires that local jurisdictions with disadvantaged communities incorporate an environmental justice element into their General Plan or, in the alternative, integrate goals, policies, and objectives into other elements of their General Plan to achieve similar goals.
Following significant outreach across the state with environmental justice groups, city and county planning departments, state agencies, and many other stakeholders to provide guidance, OPR distributed a draft of the Environmental Justice Chapter on November 20. This draft contains: (1) a process by which to determine if a local jurisdiction is subject to the SB 1000 requirements; (2) new considerations regarding private-public entity partnerships; (3) additional information about updates when cities and/or counties have some policies for SB 1000; (4) example policy language and data sources; and (5) updated discussions on thematic areas to include under SB 1000.
In Westsiders Opposed to Overdevelopment v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1079, the Second District Court of Appeal held that a charter city may approve a general plan amendment for a single project site, even if initially requested by a project applicant, so long as the city’s charter did not “clearly and explicitly” limit or restrict such an action.
In 2013, Real Party in Interest Philena Property Management, LLC (Philena) filed for a land use permit with the City of Los Angeles (City), a charter city, to convert an auto mall into residential, retail, and office space close to a new light rail station and other transit (Project). The Project required preparation of an EIR, a development agreement between Philena and the City, several conditional use permits, and, of chief concern here, an amendment to the City’s general plan to change the project site land use designation. The City reviewed the proposal, granted the project requirements, and approved the Project in September 2016. Westsiders Opposed to Overdevelopment (Westsiders), an association of neighborhood residents, filed suit.
Westsiders alleged that the City exceeded its authority in the Los Angeles City Charter section 555 subdivisions (a) and (b) (Sections 555(a) and 555(b)) by approving a general plan amendment for a single parcel and allowing Philena to effectively initiate the amendment. The trial court held that the City did not exceed its authority or abuse its discretion in amending the general plan. Further, the trial court denied Westsiders’ request for judicial notice of early drafts and proposed amendments to Section 555 where interpreting the statute did not require review of its legislative history. Westsiders timely appealed.
The Appellate Court first addressed whether it is proper to seek a writ of mandate or administrative mandamus for relief in this situation. Westsiders contended that Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 applied and the award of an administrative mandamus is appropriate here “to review the final adjudicative action of an administrative body.” The Court found that this claim misplaced as a general plan amendment is a legislative action and Government Code section 65301.5 explicitly says that a legislative action is to be reviewed for a writ of mandate, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085.
With this in mind, the Court turned to Westsiders’ arguments that the City exceeded its authority in approving the general plan amendment. Section 555(a) permits general plan amendments for, as pertinent here, “geographic areas, provided that the part or area involved has significant social, economic, or physical identity.” Westsiders claimed that a single parcel of land could not qualify as a geographic area. Relying on the dictionary definitions for each word, the Court determined that “geographic area” means any physical region. The parcel was indeed a physical region that satisfied this definition despite its singularity and small size. Second, Westsiders claimed that the parcel did not have “significant social, economic, or physical identity” as it was a car lot in a busy area with no distinctive features. The Court held that the City had no “clear and explicit” categorical limits on what it could and could not determine to be significant. Consequentially, the Court held in favor of not restricting municipal power.
Westsiders alleged that the City was required to make explicit findings that the project site qualified as a geographic area of significant economic or physical identity. The Court, after pointing out that Westsiders did not cite any authority for this claim, held that the City was not required to make explicit findings for a legislative act per San Francisco Tomorrow. The City did find that the project site had a significant physical and economic identity near a transit-oriented area and was one of the largest underutilized parcels in the area. These findings, though unnecessary, supported the City’s decision to issue a general plan amendment for the site.
The Court then addressed Westsiders’ argument that the City violated Section 555(b) by allowing Philena to initiate a general plan amendment with a project proposal. The Section provides “[t]he Council, the City Planning Commission, or the Director of the Planning Commission may propose amendments to the General Plan.” The Court found that, while the Charter outlined certain permissions for initiating an amendment, it did not provide any “clear and explicit limitation” to do so. The Court held that, absent such a limitation, the City did not violate Section 555(b) in responding to Philena’s request for the amendment.
Finally, the Court addressed Westsiders’ contention that the City’s action constituted impermissible spot zoning where there was no “substantial public need.” Since Westsiders did not raise this claim at the trial level, they waived their right to appeal the issue.
The Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the petition.
Claims against a charter city’s legislative action must be supported by “clear and explicit” limitations in the plain language of the city’s charter.
In the last evening of the last legislative session of his governorship, California Governor Jerry Brown signed two bills directed at increasing housing availability in the State. He signed each September 30, 2018 with no instructive message.
Senate Bill 828, proposed by San Francisco Democratic Senator Scott Wiener, requires local governments to report more data to the State in order to determine local housing needs pursuant to the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) law, including percentages of people spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing. The bill sets a minimum target vacancy rate of 5 percent as “healthy.” Areas that fail to meet this goal will need to zone for more housing.
Localities will also be required to zone for housing based on both projected needs and current shortages. Previously, the law only required local governments to zone for projected needs and, therefore, allowed shortages already prevalent in the community to be overlooked. As originally proposed, the bill required localities to zone for 200 percent of projected housing needs in order to boost housing production statewide. However, this figure was reduced to 100 percent in committee review and floor debates.
Developers around the State could see more dense residential zoning in cities that previously had few development opportunities. Opponents of the bill argued that the bill transfers too much planning power away from local governments and into the hands of the State.
Proponents of the bill see it as forcing affluent municipalities to build their fair share of affordable housing. Specifically, the bill represents an effort to force wealthy cities like Beverly Hills and those surrounding San Francisco to plan for additional affordable housing so that existing low-income communities are not solely saddled with the burden of producing more housing.
Both bills support the Legislature’s recent push to use housing supply laws to make it harder for cities to say no to projects that would help alleviate the housing crisis in California.
In City of Morgan Hill v. Bushey (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1068, the California Supreme Court held that a local referendum challenging a zoning ordinance amendment in the City of Morgan Hill (a general law city) was valid even where the referendum, if adopted by the local electorate, would be inconsistent with the general plan, so long as the city has the means to make the two consistent within a “reasonable amount” of time.
Seeking the construction of a hotel, the City of Morgan Hill, amended the city’s general plan to change a parcel designation from industrial use to commercial use in 2014; the zoning ordinance remained unchanged. Subsequently, in early 2015, the city approved rezoning the parcel from “ML-Light Industrial” to “CG-General Commercial.” Local hotel owners established the Morgan Hill Hotel Coalition (Coalition) to challenge the city’s approval of the rezone by referendum. The city declined to place the referendum on the ballot concluding that it was invalid because, if adopted by the local electorate, it would result in an inconsistency between the city’s current general plan and zoning ordinance. Coalition brought suit challenging the city’s decision not to place the referendum on the ballot.
The trial court, following the holding in deBottari v. City of Norco (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204 (deBottari) that a referendum that “enacts” a zoning ordinance inconsistent with the general plan is invalid, held in favor of the city. Coalition filed an appeal.
The appellate court disagreed with the holding in deBottari and reversed the trial court, holding that referendums are not per se invalid if they contradict the general plan. Citing Government Code section 65860, subsection (c), the appellate court held, where a city could adopt a new designation within a “reasonable time,” a referendum may be valid. (City of Morgan Hill v. Bushey (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 34.) The California Supreme Court granted review.
The Court first emphasized the importance of the referendum power to alter local government policy, subject to preemption by the state legislature in only a few cases. At a local level, this power may only be preempted where there is a “definite indication” or “clear showing” that it was within the ambit of the Legislature’s purpose to restrict those rights. For instance, the Court elaborated, there is no reason to maintain the referendum power over ministerial or administrative tasks of local governments, they have no discretion. In addition, the Legislature maintains some power over local government authority to guide land use where it is an issue of “statewide concern,” for example the mandate to have a general plan.
Turning to the issue at hand, the City claimed that the referendum was invalid because it was “essentially an initiative causing the zoning ordinance and general plan to conflict.” The Court held that a referendum is not null simply because of an inconsistency with the general plan. Relying on Government Code section 65860, subdivision (a), the Court explained that such a referendum is not the final imposition where a local government “can use other means to bring consistency to the zoning ordinance and the general plan.” Here, the Court found that, if the referendum passed, the city was at liberty to change the zoning ordinance to another conforming use that was in line with the general plan. Essentially, the city was not without options.
The Court clarified that the referendum power should not be viewed as the power to repeal an ordinance or revive another, instead it provides the ability of the electorate to weigh in on a local government decision. Thus, the trial court was wrong to say the referendum would “enact” an ordinance. A referendum, rather than rewriting and establishing a specific ordinance, merely prevents a certain type of change from happening and directs the local government to take a different direction.
Given our duty to protect the referendum power, we conclude the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that a referendum can be used to challenge a zoning ordinance amendment that attempts to make the zoning ordinance consistent with an amended general plan. But it is not clear if other zoning designations were available for the property here, or whether the City has other means to comply with a successful referendum while making the zoning ordinance and the general plan consistent with one another. So we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand the case to the Court of Appeal with directions to remand to the trial court to address these questions.
A referendum that results in a zoning ordinance inconsistent with the general plan may be valid so long as the local government may be able to bring them in to congruence with one another within a “reasonable time.” In reaching its holding, the Court focused on Government Code section 65860, which applies to general law cities and certain charter cities (pursuant to subdivision (d) of the statute). Therefore, the Court’s holding does not directly apply to charter cities that are not subject to Government Code section 65860.
After successfully defending a challenge to a resolution granting nonconforming use status to a mining operation in Santa Clara County, Respondent’s attorney filed a motion to recover costs associated with the preparation of the administrative record. This included the labor costs for the attorneys and paralegals who had assisted with the preparation of the large and complex record. Respondent was not otherwise entitled to recover attorney’s fees, and Petitioner argued that to grant these fees in the context of labor costs would be the equivalent of granting attorney’s fees.
While the trial court found that there was good reason to grant the costs due to the complexity of the record, it ultimately denied the motion because there was no appellate legal authority on point. In No Toxic Air v. Lehigh Southwest Cement Co., 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 624, the Court of Appeal provided that authority by extending CEQA precedent to other proceedings that involve an administrative record.
In the CEQA context, this issue was definitively decided in Otay Ranch, L.P. v. County of San Diego (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 60,where the court ruled that the prevailing party could recover the labor costs of attorneys and paralegals in the creation of the administrative record as long as the labor costs were reasonably and necessarily incurred. To hold otherwise, the court stated, would undermine the statutory policy of shifting the costs and expenses of preparing the administrative record.
Here, the Sixth District held that the same reasoning used in Otay Ranch applied in other cases in which an administrative record was prepared. Accordingly, the Court held that labor costs for attorneys and paralegals to prepare the administrative record are recoverable as expenses under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1094.5, subdivision (a).
Key Point: A prevailing party can recover the labor costs of attorneys and paralegals in the creation of the administrative record, even in non-CEQA administrative mandamus cases, as long as the labor costs were reasonably and necessarily incurred.
In 2012, the City of Kingsburg began the process of annexing approximately 430 acres of land in Fresno County, including developed land that was home to three major facilities: a glass manufacturing plant, a grape processing facility, and a raisin processing plant. The land proposed for annexation separates the City of Kingsburg from the City of Selma, which is located approximately five miles to the north.
Before approving the annexation, Kingsburg concluded that the project would not cause any significant environmental impacts with mitigation and prepared a mitigated negative declaration (MND). When Kinsgburg certified the MND in September of 2012, it also requested that the Fresno County Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCo) initiate proceedings to approve the annexation. After continuing the annexation hearing several times, LAFCo approved the annexation on July 17, 2013.The City of Selma brought two actions challenging the decision: one against Kingsburg and one against LAFCo.
The court decided City of Selma v. City of Kingsburg, 2016 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5207 in an unpublished opinion. The City of Selma had challenged the CEQA process used by Kingsburg to approve the annexation and to repeal certain design standards applicable to the annexation area that concerned the large glass manufacturer, including a requirement to place electrical and telecommunications lines underground.
The court first held that written materials relevant to the agency’s compliance with CEQA must be included in the administrative record, even if the documents were prepared after the project was approved. Next, the court affirmed the trial court and held that Kingsburg had complied with CEQA for the annexation project by preparing an MND. In doing so, the court rejected Selma’s challenges to the adequacy and scope of the water supply analysis and Kingsburg’s ability to provide fire protection to the annexed area.
Finally, the court found that Kingsburg had failed to demonstrate that the common sense exception applied to the repeal of the design standards. The court rejected Kingsburg’s argument that the existence of other standards precluded the possibility that repealing the design standards could cause significant environmental impacts. The Court also held that Kingsburg erred by failing to reference the factual record in its notice of exemption.
The Fifth Appellate District partially published its opinion in City of Selma v. Fresno County Local Agency Formation Commission, 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 581. For various reasons, the LAFCo hearing had originally been noticed for April 10, 2013 but was continued until July 17, 2013. Selma argued that this violated Government Code section 56666, subdivision (a)’s 70-day limitation for continuances. The court agreed, but concluded that the 70-day limitation is directory rather than mandatory pursuant to section 56106.
Key Point: Failure to comply with the continuance limitation, as opposed to the initial scheduling requirement, for LAFCo annexation proceedings will not result in a reversal of the LAFCo’s determination.
On July 13, 2016, the Fourth Appellate District ordered the partial publication of its recent decision in Joshua Tree Downtown Business Alliance v. County of San Bernardino. Thomas Law Group requested publication on behalf of the California Infill Builders Federation.
The only portion of the opinion that was not published by the Court was Section IV, which addresses whether the County was required to disclose that the future occupant of the project was Dollar General.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.