Thomas Law Blog

CEQA Updates

Keeping You Up-to-Date on the California Environmental Quality Act

Posts Tagged ‘zoning’


First District Finds Design Review Does Not Make Entire Project Subject to Discretionary Review

Tuesday, January 15th, 2019

In McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (2018) 2018 Cal.App.LEXIS 1233, the First District Court of Appeal held that the City’s design review process did not require the separate invocation of CEQA; the City complied with CEQA where it was at its discretion to find the express content of the design review ordinance limited its review.

The City of St. Helena (City) approved a demolition permit and design review to demolish a single-family home and develop an eight-unit multifamily residential building (Project). The site’s zoning designation of “high density residential” established that multifamily housing was a permitted use, subject to design review. The Planning Commission found that the Project was a categorically-exempt infill project (CEQA Guidelines, § 15332) and approved it.  McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group (McCorkle) appealed the decision to the City Council.

The City Council found that the Project met the design standards under the applicable zoning designation and approved the Project. In doing so, the Council found that the Project met all 14 required design review factors and that the design review ordinance prevents the City from disapproving the Project for any non-design-related reasons. The Council also found that a Class 32 infill exemption to CEQA applied and the Project would not “result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality.” The City’s resolution specifically stated that the exemption finding “was consistent with the City’s limited discretion to consider or address environmental impacts [where] ‘Multi-family residential land uses are permitted by right in the [zoning] District.’” The City thus concluded that “in the context of this design review approval, the [City’s] authority/discretion is limited to (design related) concerns stemming from the only discretionary actions required for project approval.” McCorkle filed suit.

McCorkle alleged that the City was incorrect to find that its design review process did not require the separate invocation of CEQA. Further, McCorkle alleged that the City improperly found the Project a categorically-exempt infill project and abused its discretion for not requiring the preparation of an EIR. McCorkle also alleged that the City Council improperly delegated CEQA authority to the Planning Commission. The trial court denied the petition for writ of mandate. McCorkle timely appealed.

The Appellate Court first held that there was no improper delegation of the City and City Council’s authority under CEQA. The Planning Commission was the initial reviewing agency, but that did not mean that the City Council had abdicated its project review duties to the Planning Commission. Instead, following an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision, the City Council took independent action in finding the Project exempt and approving the Project. There was no improper delegation.

The Court then disagreed with McCorkle’s claim that, because the City had discretion to conduct design review, the entire Project was discretionary and subject to CEQA. McCorkle relied on the general rule that, where a project involves both discretionary and ministerial approvals, the entire project is deemed discretionary.  However, the Court concluded that the rule “applies only when the discretionary component of the project gives the agency the authority to mitigate environmental impacts.” Here, the design review process allowed the City to change the appearance of the Project, but the general plan and design review standards did not provide a means for the City to mitigate impacts to parking, traffic, safety and soil remediation. Thus, the City did not abuse its discretion in finding that the design review ordinance did not mandate that the City consider disapproving the Project for non-design related matters.

Echoing the holding in Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004, the Court found that the City was not, pursuant to general law, required to have a design review ordinance. Where the City chose to impose an additional level of review, “it is for the City to determine the scope that such review will entail.” Thus, the City’s understanding of its own ordinance was afforded great deference as “the [CEQA] Guidelines recognize that the application of CEQA to a local ordinance is dependent upon the scope and interpretation of the local ordinance, rather than vice versa.” The Court found this explanation in line with CEQA Guidelines section 15040, which expressly limits an agency’s authority under CEQA to only powers expressly or impliedly granted to the agency by other laws. 

After finding that the City was not required to mitigate non-design related environmental impacts, the Court found it unnecessary to evaluate the City’s reliance on the CEQA exemption for infill projects. Because the Project was consistent with the general plan and the City addressed Appellants’ argument to the contrary “in great detail,” there was no need for the Court to continue its analysis.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s holding.

Key Point:

A municipality’s design review process does not always require the separate invocation of CEQA.


Note: This case was originally unpublished. January 11, 2019 the court ordered its publication on the request of the California Building Industry Association, California Infill Builders Federation, Treasury Wine Estates Americas LLC, and the California Chapter of the American Planning Association.

SB 50 “Equitable Communities Incentive” Would Exempt Affordable Housing Developments in “Job-Rich” and “Transit-Rich” Areas from Certain Zoning Standards

Friday, December 21st, 2018

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 proposed a similar bill last session, SB 827, which perished in committee review amid opposition from cities and vocal labor, building, and environmental groups largely for failing to provide adequate protections to existing renters. The renewed and revised bill, SB 50, provides a specific protection against the risk of displacement by prohibiting projects on a site that had a housing tenant within the last seven years. Key components of SB 50 include the following proposals:

  • Establishes the “equitable communities incentive” for developers that meet the following criteria:
    • Project must be in a job-rich or transit-rich area (Gov. Code, § 65918.52(a).)
    • Project must be on a site already zoned to allow for housing (Gov. Code, § 65918.52(b).)
    • Project meets SB 50’s affordable housing requirements and, if applicable, the heightened local inclusionary housing ordinance (Gov. Code, § 65918.52(c).)
    • Project site was not occupied by tenants within seven years preceding the date of application, including housing that was vacated or demolished, nor was the site withdrawn from lists as a home for rent within fifteen years (Gov. Code, § 65918.52(d).)
  • Exempts eligible projects from maximum density controls, maximum parking requirements greater than 0.5 spaces per unit, and includes the following:
    • Waiver from maximum height requirements less than 45 feet and FAR less than 2.5, for projects 0.25-0.5 miles from a major transit stop
    • Waiver from maximum height requirements less than 55 feet and FAR requirements less than  3.25, for projects within 0.25 miles from a major transit stop
    • Provides each eligible project up to three incentives and concessions pursuant to the Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915.)
  • Permits local governments to modify or expand the terms of the incentive “provided that the equitable communities incentive is consistent with, and meets the minimum standards specific in, this chapter”
  • Delays implementation of SB 50 until July 2020 for “sensitive communities,” areas vulnerable to displacement pressures

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.

California Supreme Court Allows Referendum Vote That Would Make Zoning Ordinance Inconsistent with General Plan for “Reasonable Time”

Thursday, August 23rd, 2018

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.

The Court concluded:

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.

Key Point:

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.

Second District Prohibits Preparation of Subsequent EIR Where Project-level EIR Covered All “Reasonably Foreseeable Consequences” of Later Plan-level Project; Spot-Zoned Target Store Permissible Where in Public Interest

Thursday, August 23rd, 2018

In Citizens Coalition Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, (2018) 26 Cal. App. 5th 561, the Second District Court of Appeal held that the City of Los Angeles’s (City) reliance on an addendum to a prior project-level EIR prepared for a Target store was legally sufficient environmental review for the approval of a later ordinance amending a specific plan applicable to the area containing the Target store. The City’s reliance on the Target EIR and addendum was permissible where the new ordinance did not present “reasonably foreseeable consequences” beyond those presented in the Target EIR.

The City completed an EIR for a Target store and then later passed an ordinance that amended its neighborhood-based specific plan to create a new subzone for large commercial development, and placed the half-built Target store into that new subzone. In passing the ordinance, the City relied on an addendum to the Target store EIR. Citizens Coalition Los Angeles (Citizens) filed suit.

Citizens alleged that the City’s actions violated CEQA by failing to conduct subsequent environmental review when creating the new subzone. The trial court held that the City violated CEQA for treating the action as a follow-on to its prior, initial approval of the Target store. The City and Real Party in Interest, Target Corporation, timely appealed.

The Appellate Court outlined that, where an EIR has been prepared, Public Resource Code section 21166 provides a supplemental EIR may only be required where new information comes to light or there is a substantial change to the project plans or project circumstances that requires a “major revision” to the EIR. Relying on Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District, (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 937, the Court found that only where one of the exceptions of Public Resources Code section 21166 applies may a new EIR be required. If an EIR “retains any relevance in light of the proposed changes,” then an addendum is proper, not a subsequent EIR.

The Court, relying on CEQA Guidelines section 15162 for direction, asked “[did] the existing CEQA document encapsulate all of the environmentally significant impacts of the project?” Further environmental review was only required if the later action was not a “reasonably foreseeable consequence” of the original project-level EIR. The Court awarded “greater deference to a public agency’s determination … than they [would for] whether initial CEQA review is required.”

The Court clarified that a “reasonably foreseeable consequence” is where “that consequence is, as a practical matter, sufficiently certain to happen.” The Court then outlined five such situations: (1) where an agency has already committed itself to undertake the consequence; (2) where a project presupposes the occurrence of consequence – where a consequence is a necessary and essential component of the project itself; (3) where a consequence is already under environmental review; (4) where an agency subjectively intends or anticipates the consequence; and (5) where an agency creates an incentive that is all but certain to result in a consequence.

Here, the Court found that substantial evidence supported the City’s finding that the sole reasonably foreseeable consequence of the ordinance was the construction of the Target store. Evidence in the administrative record showed that the City had not committed to any other large-scale commercial development on parcels meeting the ordinance criteria.  As such, Public Resources Code section 21166 did not merit subsequent or supplemental EIR as all of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the ordinance had been addressed in the prior EIR and addendum. The Court further clarified that it did not matter that, though unconventional, the plan-level project relied on a project-level EIR.

Having settled the adequacy of the City’s environmental review, the Court then determined that the ordinance did not constitute impermissible spot zoning because extensive evidence in the record showed that the location of the store was in the public interest. Relying on Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange, (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1302, the Court defined an island or spot zoning as where a parcel of land is rezoned to give it fewer or greater rights than parcels around it. In reviewing such claims, the Court’s focus is on if the City’s discretionary action is in the public interest. Only where an island is arbitrary, irrational, or unreasonable will it be impermissible. Here, record evidence showed demonstrated numerous benefits of the store being part of a shopping complex near pedestrian walkways and public transportation. Thus, the City’s action was in the public interest.

The Appellate Court reversed the trial court holding. In a separate holding, the Appellate Court awarded attorneys fees to Citizens’ co-petitioners, La Mirada Neighborhood Association. Read more about that in our blog post “Private Attorney General Doctrine Attorney’s Fees Proper For Party Successful in Invalidating Specific Plan Variances

Note that this case was originally published by the Appellate Court and then depublished by the Supreme Court at the same time that the Supreme Court denied review.

Key Point:

Public Resources Code section 21166 prohibits an agency from preparing a subsequent EIR where a project-level EIR covered all “reasonably foreseeable consequences” of a later plan-level project.

A city’s action to spot zone is evaluated by the court for being in the public interest, with great deference given to the city’s determination.

Sixth District Court of Appeal Upholds Application of CEQA Exemption for Small Facility —Utility Extension In the Absence of Petitioner Carrying Its Burden to Demonstrate the Location, Cumulative Impact, or Unusual Circumstances Exceptions Applied

Monday, February 5th, 2018

In Aptos Residents Association v. County of Santa Cruz (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1039, the Sixth District Court of Appeal found a Class 3 categorical exemption for “small structures” applied to multiple small projects considered as a group. The Court held the County of Santa Cruz (County) acted properly in reviewing a series of CEQA-exempt utility pole installations individually and as an aggregate project.

Real Party in Interest Crown Castle Inc.’s (Crown) project application proposed installation of multiple microcell distributed antenna systems (DAS) in rural County areas (Project). These installations are two-foot by one-foot antennas attached to existing utility poles operated by a single wireless carrier. Crown submitted each microcell system proposal in a separate permit application. However, Crown presented, and the County considered, the installations together as a single project. The County approved the Project, finding the DAS systems exempt from CEQA as categorically exempt “small facilities.” Aptos Resident Association (ARA) filed suit against the County.

ARA contended that the Project was not exempt from CEQA because the County improperly segmented the Project and the Project fell within multiple exceptions to the exemption based on its location (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(a)), cumulative impact (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2 (b)), and unusual circumstances (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(c)). The trial court disagreed and upheld the County’s approval of the Project. ARA timely appealed the decision.

The Appellate Court held the County properly found the project to be categorically exempt from CEQA as a Class 3 exemption (CEQA Guidelines, § 15303) and thus, no environmental review was required. Class 3 exemptions include projects that propose the construction of limited small facilities or structures, as well as the installation of small equipment and facilities in small structures, incorporating electrical, gas, and utility extensions. Relying on Robinson v. City and County of San Francisco (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 950, the Court found that substantial evidence supported the County’s Class 3 exemption because the Project constituted “the installation of small new equipment on numerous existing small structures in scattered locations.”

The Court then found ARA’s segmenting claim lacked merit where the County “considered the entire group of microcell units to be the Project.” Although Crown filed separate permit applications for the individual microcell units and the County issued separate permits and exemptions for each unit, the Project was considered as a group. Rejecting the segmentation argument, the Court noted that “[t]he nature of the paperwork required for approval of the project is immaterial.”

The Court also denied ARA’s claim that the Project would fall within a cumulative impact exception (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(b)) because other cell carriers would mirror Crown’s microcell project’s approval within the County, thus increasing the visual impact. The court found ARA’s argument baseless and speculative where evidence in the record suggested to the contrary. The Northern California Joint Pole Association controlled access to the utility poles; access was only available if all of those using the pole agreed and the pole would not be overloaded by additional equipment. Thus, the possibility of additional installations on the same poles was remote.

The Court then found the location exception (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(a)) to the Class 3 exemption did not apply. The location exception is restricted to projects that “may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.” The County Code designating the area as “rural” and “residential agricultural” did not have any language in the statement of purpose designating the area as an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern. ARA presented no evidence that Project site qualified.

Finally, the Court found that the County did not abuse its discretion by finding no exception based on unusual circumstances. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(c).) Relying on Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, the Court held ARA did not meet the burden of showing a reasonable possibility the activity would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. ARA produced no evidence that it is unusual for small structures to be used to provide utility extensions in a rural area, or in areas zoned residential agricultural.

Having dismissed each of ARA’s contentions on appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court and found the DAS installations were properly exempt from CEQA.

Key Point:

When challenging CEQA exemptions, the burden lies on petitioners to show clear and unrefuted evidence that the classification was improper; speculation and hearsay are insufficient.

Further, CEQA allows the exemption for small facilities to apply to multiple small facilities at once within a project. Agriculture zoning is inadequate to successfully claim the location exception, facts must show that the project site is actually “an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern.”

Second District Court of Appeal Upholds Interlocutory Remand in Shopping Center Project Challenge, Clarifies General Plan Relationship with Projects

Monday, July 31st, 2017

In The Highway 68 Coalition v. County of Monterey (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 883, the Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court and upheld the County’s approval of a shopping center proposed by Omni Resources LLC (“Omni”), known as the Corral de Tierra Neighborhood Retail Village (“Project”).

The Project, proposed for construction on eleven acres of land located at the intersection of Highway 68 and Corral de Tierra Road in Monterey County, consists of ten retail buildings, including a grocery store, a two-story office building, and other retail spaces for a sporting goods store, bank, florist, mail store, post office branch, or a barber/beauty salon.

After the Board of Supervisors certified an EIR and approved the project in February 2012, the plaintiff sued the County, alleging failure to comply with CEQA. The trial court rejected the plaintiff’s claims of CEQA violations, but issued an order of interlocutory remand to allow the County to clarify whether the Project was consistent with the County’s general plan requirement that the Project have a long-term, sustainable water supply.

On remand, the Board adopted a resolution finding that the Project was consistent with the County’s general plan. In March 2015, the plaintiff filed its opening brief, contending that the County violated both CEQA and procedural due process during the remand proceedings. In 2015, the trial court again held for the County and Omni.

In the published portion of the opinion, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred in issuing an interlocutory remand. According to plaintiff, where an agency abused its discretion, the only allowable procedure, as provided by Public Resources Code (“PRC”) section 21168.9, was an order compelling compliance with CEQA. The court found that the mandate procedures in PRC section 21168.9 did not apply because the issue of whether a proposed project was consistent with a county’s general plan was not a CEQA issue. Citing Voices of the Wetlands v. State Water Resources Control Board (2011) 52 Cal.4th 499, the court concluded that the trial court’s choice to issue an interlocutory remand was eminently practical and well within the court’s inherent power. Because there was a single, discrete non-CEQA issue of general plan consistency that required clarification before the County’s approval of the Project could be upheld, the court concluded interlocutory remand was proper in this case.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s contention that the EIR failed to analyze whether the project was consistent with the County’s 2010 general plan. The court found that, although CEQA requires an analysis of general plan inconsistency, CEQA does not require an analysis of general plan consistency. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the County’s finding on interlocutory remand that the project was consistent with the County’s general plan and had a long-term sustainable water supply was not supported by substantial evidence.

Key Point:

The Sixth District Court of Appeal found that PRC section 21168.9 addresses CEQA issues, and is not applicable to an inquiry into whether or not a proposed project is consistent with a county’s general plan. The Court also held that interlocutory remand is proper where there is a single, discrete, non-CEQA issue of general plan consistency that the trial court determined required clarification before approval of a proposed project.

California Supreme Court Grants Review of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City Of San Diego

Wednesday, January 25th, 2017

On January 11, 2017, the California Supreme Court unanimously granted review of the Fourth Appellate District’s published opinion, Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 103.

In granting review, the Court identified the following issues:

  1. Is the enactment of a zoning ordinance categorically a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)?
  2. Is the enactment of a zoning ordinance allowing the operation of medical marijuana cooperatives in certain areas the type of activity that may cause a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment?

The Fourth District held that the enactment and amendment of the zoning ordinance did not have the potential for resulting in “a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment,” and was thus not a project. (4 Cal.App.5th 103). More specifically, the court ruled that the impacts alleged by appellants concerning increased travel, cultivation, and development did not create a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment because these allegations were too speculative. (4 Cal.App.5th 103, 119-124).

No Distinction Between a “Grant” or “Denial” in Application of 90-day Limitation Period to Challenge a Zoning “Decision”

Friday, January 27th, 2012

General Development Co. v. City of Santa Maria (January 25, 2012)  202 Cal.App.4th 1391

A developer applied to change the zoning designation for a 4.84 acre parcel of vacant land.  The City of Santa Maria denied the request, and the developer filed a lawsuit, 97 days after the city’s final decision.  The court dismissed developer’s action, holding that a challenge to a denial of a zone change application is subject to the 90-day limitation period set forth in Government Code section 65009, subdivision (c)(1)(B).

The developer argued that denial of a rezoning application does not qualify as “a decision” because it does not require the city to “adopt or amend a zoning ordinance” within the meaning of section 65009.  In the developer’s view, the 90-day limitation period should only apply to “decisions” granting a zone change, not “decisions” denying a zone change.

The court looked to the Legislative intent of section 65009, finding no indication pointing toward a “grant v. denial” distinction.  Instead, the short 90-day statute is intended to allow government entities, land owners, lessees, adjoining land owners, and the public, to know quickly whether there is a “theoretical cloud” hanging over the land.  The court noted that section 65009 could be drafted with greater precision, but the language used does not defeat the stated legislative goal of providing “certainty for property owners and local governments” and a longer statute of limitation, combined with the typical pace of litigation, could inhibit free alienation and use of land.

Key Point:

This case should serve as a cautionary tale when considering whether to bring a challenge under  the catch-all three-year limitations period that applies to “an action upon a liability created by statute.”  For a zoning challenge, this case makes clear that an action should be brought within 90 days to avoid dismissal.

Written by:  Tina Thomas and Amy Higuera

___________
For questions relating to this blog post or any other California land use, environmental and/or planning issues contact Thomas Law Group at (916) 287-9292.

The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Thomas Law Group, nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.