Holden v. City of San Diego

• Decision Date: 03 December 2019
• Docket Number: D074474
• Citation: 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 873,43 Cal.App.5th 404
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Lark HOLDEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO et al., Defendants and Respondents; Idea Enterprise, LP, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

43 Cal.App.5th 404

255 Cal.Rptr.3d 873

Lark HOLDEN, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO et al., Defendants and Respondents;Idea Enterprise, LP, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

D074474

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Filed December 3, 2019

Law Offices of Felix Tinkov and Felix M. Tinkov, Escondido, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Mara W. Elliott, City Attorney, Glenn T. Spitzer and Tyler Louis Krentz, Deputy City Attorneys, for Defendants and Respondents.

Dillon Miller & Ahuja, Timothy P. Dillon and Sunjina K. Ahuja, Carlsbad, for Real Party In Interest and Respondent.

AARON, J.

Plaintiffs Lark Holden and James Stansell¹ appeal a judgment denying their petition for writ of mandate challenging decisions by the City of San Diego and City Council for the City of San Diego (collectively City) to grant a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. )² exemption for a residential development project proposed by IDEA Enterprise, LP (IDEA) in the North Park area of City and to approve the project. On appeal, Holden contends that: (1) City abused its discretion by granting a CEQA exemption for the project; and (2) City erred by approving the project with a residential density less than that required by its general plan (General Plan). As we explain post , the trial court did not err in denying the petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2014, IDEA submitted an application to City for the demolition of two existing single-family houses on adjacent parcels and construction of seven detached residential condominium units on the 0.517-acre aggregate site on Indiana Street in City's North Park community (Project). The Project's site is located on the western hillside of a canyon with a 35- to 41-degree down slope; the site is considered to be environmentally sensitive land. The Project would cover approximately 42 percent of the site.

In 2015, City's planning staff initially informed IDEA that the Project did not comply with the minimum density required for development of the site under City's General Plan and its Greater North Park Community Plan (Community Plan). Specifically, the 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. However, in late 2015, City's 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's staff concluded that the Project was categorically exempt from CEQA requirements because it qualified as an infill development project pursuant to section 15332 of the California Code of Regulations, title 14, division 6, chapter 3 (Guidelines). In order for a project to qualify as an infill development project under the exemption set forth in section 15332 of the Guidelines, the project must, inter alia, be "consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies ...." (Id. , § 15332, subd. (a).) City proceeded to issue an environmental determination that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15332 of the Guidelines. The City Council denied an appeal challenging that determination. On January 19, 2017, City's planning commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve 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. City thereafter filed a notice of exemption declaring that the Project was categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15332 of the Guidelines.

In May 2017, Holden and Stansell filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging both City's determination that the Project is exempt from CEQA and its approval of the Project. The trial court denied the petition, stating in part:

"The first issue is whether substantial evidence supports the City's determination to approve the project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332. [¶] Petitioners contend that ... City avoided its duty to perform an environmental review despite the [P]roject's failure to meet the density minimum required under [General Plan] Policy LU-C.4. It reads: ‘Ensure efficient use of remaining land available for residential development and redevelopment by requiring that new development meet the density minimums of applicable plan designations.’ (AR 56:2311.) They state that [IDEA] was required to develop multi-family housing within a medium-high density of 30-44 dwelling units per acre. (AR 50:2033.) In short, Petitioners argue for the application of a rigid minimum density requirement. However, [General Plan Policy] LU-C.2 specifically directs the City to ‘[r]ely on community plans for site-specific land use and density designations and recommendations.’ (AR 56:2310.) Furthermore, a note on Figure 6 of the Plan Elements sections of the ... Community Plan states that ‘[t]he residential density recommendations may be subject to modification during implementation of this plan.’ (AR 45:1960.) Also, the Implementation Program within that section provides ‘[t]he achievability of the recommended densities may be predicated upon the design standards, development regulations and other regulations of the implementing legislation.’ In sum, as the City's counsel pointed out at oral argument, a certain amount of flexibility was contemplated by the City and built into the process.

"The record indicates that the City balanced the density requirements against the topography of the land and its accompanying restrictions to come up with a plan that generated the maximum possible density allowable under the circumstances. In other words, the project minimized the impacts to the environmentally sensitive lands through the planning of several smaller scaled detached dwelling units sited across the eastern frontage of the property that are designed on stilts to elevate the detached structures to natural land-form. (AR 4:14-16, 8:58, 41:1640-1644.) Thus, the Court concludes that substantial evidence exists to support the City's decision to rely on [Guidelines] section 15332 for infill development.

"The second issue is whether a [G]eneral [P]lan amendment was required. Given the fact that the Community Plan, as noted above, allows for the modification of the recommended densities based upon implementation and consideration of applicable regulations, [the] Court concludes that a [G]eneral [P]lan amendment pursuant to [General Plan Policy] LU-D.1 was not necessary in this case."

On April 27, 2018, the court entered an amended judgment against Holden and Stansell. Holden and Stansell timely filed a notice of appeal challenging the amended judgment.

DISCUSSION

ICEQA and Standards of Review

"CEQA and its implementing regulations ‘embody California's strong public policy of protecting the environment.’ " ( Bottini v. City of San Diego (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 281, 291, 238 Cal.Rptr.3d 260 ( Bottini ).) "CEQA establishes a three-tier environmental review process. The first step is jurisdictional and requires a public agency to determine whether a proposed activity is a ‘project.’ ... If a proposed activity is a project, the agency proceeds to the second step of the CEQA process. [¶] At the second step, the agency must ‘decide whether the project is exempt from the CEQA review process under either a statutory exemption [citation] or a categorical exemption set forth in the ... Guidelines [citations].’ ... [¶] Unlike statutory exceptions, categorical exemptions are subject to exceptions.... [¶] If a project is categorically exempt and does not fall within an exception, ‘ "it is not subject to CEQA requirements and ‘may be implemented without any CEQA compliance whatsoever.’ " ’ " ( Id. at pp. 291-292, 238 Cal.Rptr.3d 260.) "[I]f a project is not exempt, the agency must then ‘decide whether the project may have a significant environmental effect.’ " ( Id. at p. 292, 238 Cal.Rptr.3d 260.) "[I]f the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency must proceed to the third step of the process and prepare an environmental impact report (EIR)." ( Ibid. )

On an appeal challenging a trial court's denial of a petition for a writ of mandate in a CEQA case, our task is the same as the trial court's. ( Banker's Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 249, 257, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 537 ( Banker's Hill ).) We conduct our review of the agency's action independently of the trial court's findings. ( Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602, fn. 3, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 470.) Accordingly, in this appeal we review City's decision and not the trial court's. ( Banker's Hill , at p. 257, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 537.)

A public agency's "determination that [a particular] project [is] exempt from compliance with CEQA requirements ... is subject to judicial review under the abuse of discretion standard in ... section 21168.5. [Citations.] ... Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.] [¶] Where the issue turns only on an interpretation of the language of the Guidelines or the scope of a particular CEQA exemption, this presents ‘a question of law, subject to de novo review by this court.’ [Citations.] Our task is ‘to determine whether, as a matter of law, the [project] met the definition of a categorically exempt project.’ [Citation.] Thus[,] as to the question [of law] whether the activity comes within the categorical class of exemptions, ‘we apply a...