California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal has upheld the City of San Diego’s (City) determination that the infill development exemption applied to a proposed development in an environmentally sensitive area even though the development proposed fewer than half of the units that would ordinarily be required under the City’s General Plan minimum density policies. Among other requirements, a category 32 exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or exemption for “infill development,” applies to proposed developments within city limits on sites of five or fewer acres. Another important qualification to apply this exemption is that the proposed project must be consistent with “the applicable General Plan designation and all applicable General Plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.” Here, the court found that the project site’s environmental sensitivity justified the City’s determination that a lower density project was consistent with the City’s General Plan and community plan. [Holden v. City of San Diego, ___Cal.App.5th___, Case No. 37-2017-00018417 (4th Dist. Dec. 3 2019).]
Factual and Procedural Background
In 2014, IDEA Enterprise (IDEA) applied to demolish two single-family houses and construct seven detached residential condominium units on a .517-acre site in San Diego’s North Park neighborhood. The project was proposed on the western hillside of a canyon with a 35 to 41 degree downslope in an area that the City considered environmentally sensitive.
In 2015, City planning staff informed IDEA that the project did not comply with the minimum density policies for development found in the City’s General Plan and applicable Greater North Park Community Plan. (Community Plan) The General Plan and Community Plan included a recommendation that at least 16 residential units be included on the site. However, later in 2015, citing the environmental sensitivity of the project site, the City informed IDEA that the project could be constructed with seven residential units.
In 2016, City staff determined that the project was categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act as infill development under CEQA Guideline 15332. Among other things, for this exemption to apply, a project must be consistent with applicable General Plan designations and policies.
On April 18, 2017, the City issued a determination that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA review, with the city council voting to approve a tentative map and site development plan for the project. Soon thereafter, petitioners Holden and Stansell (collectively: Holden) filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the City’s determination that the project was exempt from CEQA and its approval of the project.
The key issue raised in the petition was whether or not substantial evidence supported the City’s determination that the project was exempt from CEQA under the infill exemption. Specifically, Holden alleged that the project failed to meet a City of San Diego’s General Plan Policy meant 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 designation.”
The trial court rejected this argument and denied the petition, holding that the City’s General Plan and Community Plan did not require rigid application of the minimum density policies in the General Plan.
The Court of Appeal’s Decision
The appeals court quickly turned to the key issue raised in Holden’s petition, whether the project, which called for a density that was technically less than the density called for in the General Plan and Community, nonetheless qualified for CEQA’s infill development exemption.
Relying on multiple prior cases regarding a local agency’s determination that a project is consistent with a General Plan, the Court noted that:
“. . .[t]he question is not whether there is a direct conflict between some mandatory provision of a General Plan and some aspect of a project, but whether the project is compatible with, and does not frustrate the General Plan’s goals and policies.”
Because General Plans and community plans balance a range of competing interests:
“. . .it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable plan. . . .It is enough that the proposed project will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the applicable plan. . .”
The court further discussed the well-established principle that courts will generally give public agencies great deference when finding a project is consistent with its own General Plan. As the court noted:
“. . .when we review an agency’s decision for consistency with its own General Plan, we accord great deference to the agency’s determination. This is because the body which adopted the General Plan policies in its legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity.”
As such, a court’s role was only to decide whether local officials considered applicable policies and the extent to which a project conforms with those policies. A city’s determination that a project is consistent with its General Plan will only be overturned if that determination is “based on evidence from which no reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion.” Accordingly, any party challenging such a determination bears the burden of showing why a local agency’s General Plan consistency determination is unreasonable.
The City’s General Plan and the Site’s Unique Characteristics
The Court then turned to the City’s General Plan, which sought to ensure “efficient use of remaining land available for residential development by requiring that new development meet the density minimums of applicable community plan designations.”
The court noted that based on the project site’s medium high residential density designation under the General Plan and Community Plan, the project would ordinarily be required to have 16 to 23 dwelling units pursuant to applicable General Plan Policies.
Despite these minimum density policies, the court noted that the site’s unique characteristics justified approval of a seven unit project. For example, the court took recognized that the city council had found that, because the project site was a heavily vegetated urban canyon with environmentally sensitive steep hillsides, seven units was a more suitable and environmentally sensitive proposal than would otherwise be required. The court further noted language in the Community Plan that held that residential density recommendations may be subject to modification during implementation of the plan.
Flexibility in the Community Plan on Density
The Court also highlighted other language in the Community Plan that allowed some flexibility in the City’s application of the General Plan and Community Plan’s minimum density requirements. For example, the Community Plan’s housing element noted that “the achievability of the recommended densities may be predicated upon the design standards, development regulations, and other regulations of the implementing legislation.” The court then referred to other language in the City’s municipal code that called for limits on development on steep hillsides, and for the preservation of such hillsides in their natural state.
Accordingly, the court denied Holden’s petition and found: “that the City reasonably concluded… that the project is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan and Community Plan.”
Last, the court noted that the General Plan’s density designations and requirements are not rigid and can be adjusted or modified for certain sites as provided in the Community Plan. Specifically the court held that together the General Plan and Community Plan operated so that:
“. . .if a proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the Community Plan, and the City’s development regulations, the density recommended by the General Plan. . .need not be rigidly followed.”
Conclusion and Implications
While this case was very fact specific, nevertheless, it highlights two important principles. First, courts will accord local agencies great deference in their determination that a particular project is consistent with their General Plans. Second, many courts will not rigidly apply the goals and policies outlined in a General Plan when a project does not clearly conflict with or frustrate those goals and policies. The court’s opinion is available online at: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D074474.PDF
(Travis Brooks)
