Tag: Mixed-use development

First District Court of Appeal Reverses Denial of Mixed-Use Affordable Housing Project’s Ministerial Approval Under Government Code Section 65913.4

General Posted by   

In Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 277, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of appellants’ petition filed after their application for ministerial approval of a mixed-use affordable housing development was denied under Government Code section 65913.4. Finding that the trial court improperly applied a deferential standard of review, the court held that the ministerial approval did not conflict with the City’s “home rule” authority over historic preservation or commercial uses and did not involve demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a historic register.

Background

In 2015, appellants submitted an application for a mixed-use development (the “Project”) in the City of Berkeley (the “City”). The Project is located in the West Berkeley Shellmound, an area designated as a City of Berkeley Landmark and listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. The Shellmound is a sacred burial ground from early native habitation and includes subsurface artifacts, but no above ground buildings or structures. In November 2016, the Berkeley Planning and Development Department (the “Department”) prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Project application, which concluded that the Project’s impacts on the Shellmound would be reduced to less-than-significant with mitigation measures.

On January 1, 2018, Senate Bill (“SB”) 35 went into effect, which added section 65913.4 to the Government Code. Section 65913.4 requires a streamlined ministerial approval process and an exemption from a conditional use permit for certain affordable housing projects when a locality has failed to provide its share of “regional housing needs, by income category.” In March 2018, appellants submitted an application pursuant to section 65913.4 for the development of 260 dwelling units, 50 percent of which would be “affordable to low-income households,” and retail space and parking. In April 2018, appellants asked the City to suspend processing of the use permit and California Environmental Quality Act documentation for the Project.

On June 5, 2018, the Department provided appellants with the required written response pursuant to section 65913.4, subdivision (b)(2), stating that SB 35 does not apply to the Project because it impinges on “legitimate municipal affairs”— the preservation of a designated City landmark. The Department nonetheless explained that several components of the application were inconsistent with the criteria for approval under section 65913.4. The Department denied the application for ministerial approval after appellants responded to each of the City’s points. Appellants subsequently filed suit.

The Court of Appeal’s Opinion

Demolition of a Historic Structure

The court determined that section 65913.4 is not a historical preservation statute and the term “structure” in section 65913.4, subdivision (a)(7)(C) does not include historical resources or sites. The court reasoned that section 65913.4 thus protects cultural resources differently from historic structures placed on a historic register; a project that threatens the former may obtain ministerial approval if there are no tribal objections, while the latter is ineligible for ministerial approval. While the court acknowledged that the Shellmound is an important historical and cultural resource, it concluded there is no evidence that it is a structure, let alone one that could be demolished by the Project.

Retroactive Application of AB 831’s Tribal Cultural Resource Protections

The court also refused to apply Assembly Bill (“AB”) 831’s tribal cultural resource protections retroactively to the Project application. It determined that the Legislature deliberatively allowed for some projects to proceed without tribal consultation to account for the interests of those who relied on section 65913.4 prior to AB 831’s effective date. The court held that it would be contrary to the Legislature’s intent and manifestly unfair to apply AB 831 retroactively.

The City’s “Home Rule” Authority Over Historic Preservation

Emphasizing the Legislature’s long history of frustration with local governments’ interference with addressing the statewide housing crisis, the court concluded that applying section 65913.4 would not interfere with the City’s “home rule” authority over historic preservation. Determining whether a matter falls within a charter city’s authority to govern itself free of state legislative intrusion requires the court to consider four issues: (1) whether the city ordinance at issue regulates an activity that can be characterized as a municipal affair; (2) whether there is an actual conflict between local and state law; (3) whether the state law addresses a matter of statewide concern; and (4) whether the law is reasonably related to resolution of that concern and narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference in local governance.

The court dismissed the first three parts of the “home rule” test as essentially undisputed. As for the fourth part of the test, the court determined that section 65913.4 is reasonably related to resolving the statewide interest it addresses—affordable housing—and does not unduly interfere with the City’s historical preservation authority. Citing the legislative findings in Government Code section 65589.5, the court concluded that section 65913.4 is narrowly tailored because historical preservation is precisely the kind of subjective discretionary land use decision that the Legislature sought to prevent localities from using to defeat affordable housing development.

Applicability to Mixed-Use Developments

The court held that section 65913.4 applies to mixed-use development projects. The court rejected respondents’ argument that the statute is limited to projects located on sites that meet the minimum residential requirement for mixed-use developments, rather than the actual development that is the subject of the ministerial approval application. The court concluded that the Project at issue satisfied the two-thirds residential requirement, as it includes a residential area that would occupy 88 percent of the development space. The court further explained that regardless of whether the Project should be deemed consistent with this requirement, it is consistent with the standard due to the Department’s failure to timely raise any conflict with respect to the mixed-use aspect of the application in its letter.

The City’s “Home Rule” Authority to Regulate Commercial Uses

The court rejected respondents’ argument that applying section 65913.4 to mixed-use developments interferes with the City’s authority to regulate commercial uses. Applying the “home rule” test, the court found that any interference of section 65913.4 with the local regulation of commercial uses is minimal and incidental to the statute’s purpose of facilitating development of affordable housing. The court acknowledged that the overall Project would not be subject to a conditional use permit, but nothing in the statute permits ministerial approval of a Project with commercial uses that conflict with local zoning.

Conflict with the City’s AHMF and Traffic Capacity Requirements

The court also concluded that respondents’ Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee (“AHMF”) requirements and traffic zoning standards did not provide a sufficient basis for denial of ministerial approval. The court reasoned that the statewide interest served by section 65913.4 should not be defeated by the local AHMF ordinance, which requires a lower percentage of low-income housing than the Project involves. Additionally, the court determined that the traffic zoning standards did not constitute “objective standards” pursuant to section 65913.4 and the City failed to provide adequate written documentation of potential conflicts with any specific criterion for measuring traffic impacts.

Second District Invalidates EIR’s Project Description For Failing to Provide Sufficient Detail and Certainty.

General Posted by   

In Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that an EIR for a mixed-use development project proposed by Millennium Hollywood, LLC (Millennium) in the City of Los Angeles (City) violated CEQA as a matter of law, because it failed to provide an accurate, stable, and finite project description.

In 2008, Millennium filed an application—which the Court of Appeal described as detailed—with the City proposing a mixed-use development project (2008 Proposal) on 4.47 acres in multiple parcels straddling two sides of Vine Street, between Yucca Street and Hollywood Boulevard, in the Hollywood Community Plan area of the City. The 2008 Proposal described a mixed-use development with 492 residential units, a 200-unit hotel, 100,000 square feet of office space, a 35,000-square-foot sports club and spa, 11,000 square feet of commercial uses, and 34,000 square feet of food and beverage uses. In total, proposed square footage was 1,163,079. Two historic buildings on site, the Capital Records Tower and Gogerty Building, would be preserved. The development would consist of two low-rise buildings, one on each side of Vine Street, with three towers intended to “frame” the Capital Records Tower. The 2008 Proposal would have required a zone change to allow the sports club, as well as a variance to allow the proposed density. After the City informed Millennium that a variance from the General Plan Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement would also be necessary, the project was put on hold.

In 2011, Millennium filed a new application with a new project description for the same site (2011 Project). Millennium still proposed a mixed-use development with residential, hotel, and retail uses totaling 1,166,970 square feet and a FAR of 6:1. Though the same mix of uses were proposed, the 2011 Project was “designed to create an impact ‘envelope’ within which a range of development scenarios can occur.” Thus, the specific shape, size, location, use, and number of buildings to be constructed on the site were not described, other than that the existing historic buildings would be preserved. Instead, Millennium sought to enter into a development agreement with the City that would establish the permitted developable floor area, land uses, design guidelines, and development standards for the site. Additionally, the 2011 Project included a land use equivalency program (LUEP) allowing the transfer of floor area between parcels on the site. The EIR analyzed the maximum level of impacts that could occur under the development agreement, regardless of which of the several development scenarios was actually constructed in the future.

Commenters on the Draft EIR complained that the imprecise project description hindered meaningful public participation. Nevertheless, the City approved the development agreement, certified the EIR, adopted mitigation for the analyzed maximum level of impacts and adopted a statement of overriding considerations. Petitioners, Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com, Communities United for Reasonable Development, and George Abrahams (collectively, Petitioners) petitioned the Los Angeles Superior Court for a writ of mandate setting aside project approval and certification of the EIR. Petitioners alleged three causes of action relating to violations of CEQA. First, they alleged that the EIR failed to include an accurate, stable, and finite project description. The second cause of action asserted that the City abused its discretion by failing to study traffic impacts to the 101 freeway despite Caltran’s direction that the City do so. The third cause of action alleged that the City failed to consult with the California Geological Survey regarding potential seismic hazards on the site. The trial court granted the petition as to the first and second causes of action, but not the third.

On the first cause of action, the trial court found that the project description was not stable or finite, and that the use of the word “or” in a condition of approval allowed Millennium, or future developers, to choose any permitted use listed for the C2 zone in the LAMC for future development, not just the list of proposed uses in the development agreement. The trial court reasoned that, though there may be circumstances where a project description may disclose only the physical parameters and maximum potential environmental impacts, no such circumstances were present here. The trial court distinguished Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036 (Treasure Island), on the grounds that that case dealt with a site contaminated by hazardous materials, and it was unknown when cleanup of the site would be completed. The trial court noted that the development in Treasure Island included both fixed elements (including the street grid) and conceptual elements that would “likely” be subject to supplemental CEQA review. The trial court concluded that neither element was present here.

The trial court also found that, by including an ambiguous project description, the EIR impermissibly deferred part of the analysis of environmental impacts. Specifically, the trial court found that, because no specific “concept” was analyzed, the EIR did not explain how exceedance of the maximum impacts would be avoided when the project was actually designed and built; nor was additional CEQA review contemplated by either the EIR or the development agreement. The trial court determined that, without knowing the “bona fide subject” of the EIR, it would be impossible for the public and decisionmakers to accurately weigh the “environmental price tag” of the proposal and decide if the benefits outweigh that price.

The City and Millennium appealed the trial court’s decision as to the first and second cause of action, while Petitioners appealed the decision on the third cause of action. The Court of appeal, after ruling on the first cause of action, determined that it need not reach the other issues raised by the parties.

In affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeal looked to County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185 (County of Inyo), and Washoe Meadows Community v. Department of Parks and Recreation (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 277 (Washoe Meadows). The Court cited County of Inyo for the proposition that, even where an inaccurate project description does not render invalid the analysis of environmental effects, it may nevertheless violate CEQA by interfering with “intelligent public participation.” The Court found further support for this position in Washoe Meadows, where the First District held that a failure to select or identify a specific project in the Draft EIR interfered with the public’s right to participate in CEQA review.

In the case before it, the Court found that the project description “fail[ed] to describe the siting, size, mass, or appearance of any building proposed to be built at the project site” and that the proposed development regulations imposed only vague and ambiguous limits on future construction choices. The Court held that, even if the analysis of maximum impacts were adequate—despite the project description, “CEQA’s purposes go beyond an evaluation of theoretical environmental impacts.” The Court determined that the project description violated CEQA as a matter of law.

In reaching its decision, the Court distinguished South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321 (South of Market), on two grounds. First, the Court found that the only “uncertainty” at issue in South of Market was that the project description presented a choice of either a predominately office use or a predominately residential use, but the EIR did not select one or the other. Second, the Court found that the EIR in South of Market “included ‘site plans, illustrative massing, building elevations, cross-sections and representative floor plans for both options.”’ Because the EIR before it did not include these “technical characteristics” of the project, the Court concluded that it failed to comply with CEQA’s mandates. The Court also largely agreed with basis for the trial court’s distinguishing of Treasure Island, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, finding that no unusual circumstances were present in this case, and that future planning and development of the project would not be subject to additional environmental review. Lastly, the Court found the violation to be prejudicial because it interfered with public participation.

As stated above, the Court determined that it need not address the other issues raised by the parties. The Court dismissed an argument that Public Resources Code section 21168.9 required them to rule on each issue raised in a CEQA appeal. The Court found that section applied only to the trial court’s order on remand, which is to address only those mandates from the Court of Appeal that are necessary to comply with CEQA. The Court found that the trial court’s judgment was correct on at least one ground, so it was affirmed.

Nathan George