General Plan Consistency

Subscribe to General Plan Consistency via RSS

In Stop Syar Expansion v. County of Napa (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 444, the First District Court of Appeal upheld Napa County’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the expansion of Syar Industries, Inc.’s aggregate mining operations at a local quarry. Citizen group Stop Syar Expansion (“SSE”) filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate under CEQA claiming that the EIR was deficient on 16 counts, including in its analysis of greenhouse gas emissions, water usage baseline, water quality, and general plan consistency. The trial court denied the Petition for Writ of Mandate, and SSE appealed, raising five issues. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that SSE did not exhaust administrative remedies because it failed to raise specific issues in the administrative proceedings as required by the Napa County Code. Additionally, the Court denied SSE’s general plan consistency claim under CEQA, holding that general plan consistency is properly reviewed with traditional mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085.

Sculpture of Buddha in Japan

On August 31, the First Appellate District issued its decision in Coastal Hills Rural Preservation v. County of Sonoma, which centered on the applicable standards and appropriateness of proceeding on a subsequent mitigated negative declaration (SMND), rather than an environmental impact report (EIR) under CEQA, where changes had been incorporated in a religious facility use permit that was originally reviewed under a mitigated negative declaration (MND). The appeals court affirmed the trial court judgment for the lead agency, Sonoma County, ruling that use of the SMND was appropriate and that the revised permit was not inconsistent with the County’s “Resources and Rural Development” general plan designation.

Typewriter- PublishedAs discussed in a prior post, Downey Brand recently prevailed on appeal and successfully defended one of its clients against a challenge to its proposed commercial development project in Modesto. The Fifth District Court of Appeal originally issued an unpublished opinion in Naraghi Lakes Neighborhood Preservation Association v. City of Modesto, but on July 1 ordered publication of a portion of the opinion addressing a key argument concerning general plan consistency. As such, local agencies can now cite this decision as legal precedent confirming the deference owed by the courts to cities and counties interpreting their own general plans.

Subdivision Map ActCities and counties across the state have revised their general plan policies to address the interrelated issues of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy consumption by new commercial and residential development, often in proactive and innovative ways. However, the rubber only meets the road when those projects undergo CEQA review, and courts evaluate whether those paper policies translate into real-world action. The Fourth Appellate District recently weighed in on one such situation – and found that key information got lost in translation.

In Spring Valley Lake Association v. City of Victorville (May 25, 2016), a local association challenged the construction of an approximately 215,000 square foot commercial retail development in the City of Victorville, which included an approximately 185,000 square foot Wal-Mart store. The challenge included claims under CEQA, state Planning and Zoning Law provisions concerning general plan consistency, and the Subdivision Map Act.

Land DevelopmentThe City of Modesto and Downey Brand client Berberian Holdings, L.P. (“Berberian”), have prevailed in a legal challenge to a commercial development project proposed by Berberian. On June 7, the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued a 45-page unpublished opinion in the action (Naraghi Lakes Neighborhood Preservation Association v. City of Modesto), affirming…