Plaintiffs challenged the decision of the City of San Diego to approve a residential development project pursuant to CEQA’s “Class 32” infill development exemption. The Superior Court denied the petition for writ of mandate, finding that substantial evidence supported the city’s finding to approve the Project pursuant to the exemption and that a General Plan amendment was not otherwise required. The Court of Appeal for the Fourth Judicial District affirmed. [Holden v. City of San Diego, ___Cal.App.5th___, Case No. (4th Dist. Dec. 3, 2019).]
Factual and Procedural Background
In 2014, IDEA Enterprise, Inc. (IDEA) submitted an application to the City of San Diego (City) for the demolition of two existing single-family houses on adjacent parcels and construction of seven detached residential condominium units on a 0.517-acre aggregate site in the City’s North Park community (Project). The Project site is located on the western hillside of a canyon with a 35- to 41-degree down slope, and the site is considered to be environmentally sensitive land. Altogether, the Project would cover approximately 42 percent of the site.
In 2015, the City’s planning staff initially informed IDEA that the Project did not comply with the minimum density required for development of the site under its General Plan and its Greater North Park Community Plan (Community Plan). Specifically, planning staff told IDEA that a minimum of 16 residential units would be required under Policy LU-C.4 of the General Plan and the housing element of the Community Plan. In late 2015, however, staff informed IDEA that the Project could be approved with seven residential units, citing the site’s environmental sensitivity, which made a reduced density of seven residential units appropriate.
In November 2015, the North Park Community Planning Group voted to recommend approval of the Project without conditions. In 2016, a preliminary review by City staff concluded that the Project was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the “Class 32” infill development exemption. The City issued an environmental determination finding the same, and the city council then denied an appeal challenging that determination. On January 19, 2017, the planning commission voted to recommend approval of the Project’s tentative map and site development permit. On April 18, the City Council unanimously voted to approve the tentative map and site development permit for the Project. The City then filed a notice of exemption declaring that the Project was categorically exempt.
In May 2017, plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging both the City’s determination that the Project was exempt from CEQA and its approval of the Project. In particular, plaintiffs claimed that the Project provided for less residential density than required by the General Plan, and therefore did not satisfy the requirements for an infill development exemption. The trial court denied the petition, finding that substantial evidence supported the City’s finding to approve the Project pursuant to the exemption and that a General Plan amendment was not otherwise required. Plaintiffs appealed.
The Court of Appeal’s Decision
In order for a project to qualify as an infill development project under the Class 32 categorical exemption, it must, among other things, be “consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and all applicable General Plan policies.” (14 C.C.R. § 15332.) Generally, a project is deemed consistent with a General Plan if it will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment. Perfect conformity is not required, however, and it is enough that the proposed project will be compatible with the objectives, policies, and general land uses and programs specified in the applicable General Plan. A court will give “great deference” to a public agency’s finding of consistency with its own General Plan.
In contending that the Project was inconsistent with the General Plan, plaintiffs primarily relied on General Plan Policy LU-C.4, which provides that one of the General Plan’s policies for community planning is to:
“. . .[e]nsure efficient use of remaining land available for residential development and redevelopment by requiring that new development meet the density minimums of applicable plan designations.”
Applying the applicable density designations set forth in the Community Plan’s housing element, the Project ordinarily would have been required to have 16 to 23 dwelling units per acre.
Due to site development constraints, however, including a heavily vegetated urban canyon and environmentally sensitive steep hillsides, the City ultimately found that a lower density of seven units represented a more sensitive approach. In support of this finding, the City cited to a note on Figure 6 of the Community Plan, which provides that “[t]he residential density recommendations may be subject to modification during implementation of this plan.” The Community Plan further provided that modifications to recommended densities may be incorporated into implementing legislation. Among other things, the City’s implementing legislation includes its regulations for development of environmentally sensitive lands, which restrict development on steep hillsides.
In ultimately approving the Project and finding it exempt from CEQA, the City found that it was consistent with the policies, goals, and objectives of the General Plan. In particular, it found that although Policy LU-C.4 generally requires new development to meet the density requirements of the Community Plan, which ordinarily would require 16 to 23 dwelling units on the Project site:
“. . .due to the existing site development constraints with a heavily vegetated urban canyon and environmentally sensitive steep hillsides on the premises, a lower density of seven units at this site represents a more sensitive approach to this unique area and Policy LU-C.4 can be supported for the proposed density related to canyon and hillside preservation in the community.”
City’s Balancing of Competing Policies and Regulations Was Reasonable—Conformed with General Plan
Based on its review of the record, the Court of Appeal found that the City had acted reasonably and did not abuse its discretion by balancing the competing policies and regulations and finding that the Project’s reduced density conformed to the General Plan, the Community Plan, and the City’s steep hillside development regulations. In so deferring to the City’s own construction, the court noted the City’s “unique competence” to interpret the policies set forth when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity. Because substantial evidence supported the City’s finding that the Project would be consistent with its General Plan, the court concluded that there was also substantial evidence to support the City’s finding that the Class 32 categorical exemption applied. For all of these same reasons, the court also rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the City was required to amend the General Plan before approving the Project.
Conclusion and Implications
The case is significant because it contains a robust analysis of the legal principles applicable in reviewing a local agency’s interpretation of its own General Plan policies. The decision is available online at: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D074474.PDF
(James Purvis)
