In Sacramentans v. City of Sacramento (2019) 2019 Cal.App.LEXIS 646, the Third District Court of Appeal held that, where a city determined that a proposed development met an exception to the general plan because it provided “significant community benefits,” the project was not required to comply with applicable building intensity standards in the zoning code.
The City of Sacramento (“City”), a charter city, approved a 15-story mixed-use building that defied certain provisions of the applicable general plan designation and zoning code. The City general plan allowed an exception to the building intensity standards of the general plan if the project provided “significant community benefits.” The City found the project provided community benefits by exhibiting high level design and sustainable construction, providing home ownership opportunities and abundant amounts of private and publicly-accessible open space, and meeting infill criteria, including close proximity to public transportation. The City specifically found the strong design and pedestrian connectivity of the project were consistent with multiple other City goals, including obtaining quality infill development and meeting increased housing demand.
Sacramentans for Fair Planning filed a petition for writ of mandate, alleging that the City’s approval of the project under the general plan exception was unconstitutional and that the policy itself was an unlawful delegation of legislative authority. The trial court denied the petition and Sacramentans timely appealed.
The Court of Appeal (the “Court”) affirmed, holding that the City’s approval of a project otherwise consistent with the general plan and zoning code was rationally related to the City’s legitimate goal of obtaining quality infill development.
While the Court of Appeal largely addressed and ultimately rejected Petitioners’ constitutional arguments, it also dismissed the argument that the City did not sufficiently explain how the “significant community benefit” standard in the general plan exception applied to deviations from both the general plan and zoning code. Since the petitioners had not raised the issue at the trial court level, they forfeited the right to raise it at the appellate level. The Court held that, where a city relies on an exception in the general plan to approve a project, the city may also explain why zoning code requirements are simultaneously satisfied. As long as this explanation is supported by substantial evidence in the record, a city may rely on exceptions in the general plan to approve projects otherwise inconsistent with the zoning code, even where there is no explicit zoning code exception available.
The Court found that the City’s approval of the project was a quasi-adjudicatory action, and therefore subject to the substantial evidence standard of review. The City’s decision was based upon substantial evidence because its finding of consistency with the general plan exception and other goals was reasonable based on the evidence in the record, including an initial study and project-specific environmental impact report.
The Court also found that the City properly utilized CEQA streamlining tools in approving the project. Substantial evidence in the record supported that the project was consistent with the regional planning strategy created pursuant to SB 375 (2008); the project exhibited sustainable infill development that helped the state reach its climate goals. As such, the project was properly analyzed using a streamlined CEQA process.
Going Forward
Cities reviewing projects for general plan and zoning code consistency may rely on an exception to approve the project, provided their general plan contains an express exception to the zoning code. This case supports that, where a city meets the substantial evidence threshold in determining that a project falls under an exception to the general plan, the general plan exception may be sufficient to satisfy zoning code requirements as well.
Questions
If you have any questions concerning this Legal Alert, please contact the following from our office, or the attorney with whom you normally consult.
Mona Ebrahimi
mebrahimi@kmtg.com | 916.321.4597
Olivia Filbrandt
ofilbrandt@kmtg.com | 916.321.4290