Snowball W. Invs. L.P. v. City of L. A.

96 Cal.App.5th 1054

314 Cal.Rptr.3d 864

SNOWBALL WEST INVESTMENTS L.P., Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent.

B314750

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.

Filed October 26, 2023

Gaines & Stacey, Fred Gaines and Lisa A. Weinberg, Encino, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Holland & Knight, Daniel R. Golub, San Francisco, William E. Sterling for California Building Industry Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Zacks, Freedman & Patterson, Ryan J. Patterson, San Francisco, Brian O'Neill for Yes In My Back Yard as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Matthew Gelfand and Allyson Richman for Californians for Homeownership as Amicus Curiae on behalf Plaintiff and Appellant.

June Babiracki Barlow, Los Angeles, for Californians Association of Realtors as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Michael N. Feuer, Hydee Feldstein Soto, City Attorneys, Denise C. Mills, Chief Deputy City Attorney, Terry P. Kaufmann Macias, John W. Heath, Assistant City Attorneys, Donna Wong, Deputy City Attorney for Defendant and Respondent.

COLLINS, ACTING P.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Snowball West Investments, LP applied to build a housing project consisting of 215 homes in the Sunland/Tujunga area of the City of Los Angeles.

The current zoning for the site is RA and A1; the project must be rezoned to RD5 and R1 for the project to move forward. The City denied Snowball's zone change request, stating that more information was needed before building homes in a high wildfire hazard area. Snowball petitioned for a writ of mandate, which was denied. Snowball appealed.

Snowball argues that under the rezoning exemption in the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (j)(4)¹ ( section 65589.5(j)(4) ), its project is exempt from the need for a zone change. That subdivision states that "a proposed housing development project ... shall not require a rezoning" if the housing development project is consistent with local requirements "but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan." Snowball argues that because the current zones for the project site, RA and A1, are not expressly listed in the general plan, the zoning for the site is "inconsistent" with the general plan. Consequently, the rezoning exemption in section 65589.5(j)(4) excuses the need for a zone change. The City disagrees, asserting that even though zones RA and A1 are not expressly listed in the general plan, they are nevertheless incorporated by reference, because the general plan allows all zones that are "more restrictive" than the ones listed. The City argues that because zones RA and A1 are more restrictive than the zones listed in the general plan, they are therefore "consistent" with the general plan, so the rezoning exemption in section 65589.5(j)(4) does not apply. We agree with the City that the zoning is consistent based on the language of the general plan, and therefore section 65589.5(j)(4) does not exempt Snowball's project from the requirement of a zone change.

Snowball further asserts that when denying the zone change, the City was required to make findings required by another subdivision of the HAA, section 65589.5, subdivision (j)(1) ( section 65589.5(j)(1) ). However, section 65589.5(j)(1) applies only when "a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria ... in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete." ( § 65589.5(j)(1).) Snowball's project did not comply with the zoning in effect because it required a zone change. Therefore, this subdivision also does not apply.

Finally, Snowball contends the City failed to make findings required under the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) when denying the zone change and that any such findings were not supported by substantial evidence. We hold that the findings were sufficient and were supported by substantial evidence. We therefore affirm the superior court's denial of Snowball's writ petition.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual background

1. The proposed project

Snowball owns eight parcels of land totaling 58 acres at 6433 La Tuna Canyon Road. From the 1960s to 2016, part of the property was the Verdugo Hills Golf Course. The site is bounded by a single-family residential development (Tujunga) to the north, La Tuna Canyon Road and the Foothill Freeway (Interstate 210) to the south, Tujunga Canyon Boulevard to the east, and vacant hillside terrain to the west. The site is in a "very high fire hazard severity zone." (See §§ 51177, subd. (i), 51178.)

In 2007, Snowball filed an application with the City requesting a zone change, site plan review, and project permit compliance for a development consisting of 229 homes on about 28 acres of the property (the project). Snowball later revised its application, requested a vesting zone change, and converted its project to 208 "small lot" units and seven single-family homes, for a reduced density of 215 homes.

The zoning for the project area is currently A1 and RA, which allows for a maximum density of 19 single-family homes. Snowball sought to change the zone to RD5, with a small portion as R1.²

The project went through several iterations, and worked its way through the approval process. In June 2019, the City Planning Commission (City Planning) issued a determination letter approving much of the project; a corrected letter was sent in July 2019. The letters noted that approval was conditioned on a future zoning change: "Approval of zone change to RD5-1 Zone and R1-1 Zone is required prior to obtaining clearance from Zoning Section." City Planning's determination letter also stated that the "approval of the tract map is conditioned upon the approval of" Snowball's requested zone change: "In the event [the zone change] is not approved, the number of dwelling units shall be limited to that permitted by the existing A1-1 and RA-1 Zones and a revised tract map shall be submitted for approval."

The corrected determination letter also stated, "Upon approval of the recommended [RD5 and R1] Zones, the respective portions of the Project Site will be consistent with the General Plan land use designations of Low Medium I and Low Residential." City Planning recommended that the City Council approve Snowball's vesting zone change request.

The determination letter included a section titled "Fire Protection," addressing concerns expressed by the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD). In a memorandum to City Planning in September 2017, LAFD had stated, "Development of the project will expose additional people to local fire hazards. The City of Los Angeles Fire Department considers the existing fire fighting [sic ] facilities in the vicinity inadequate to protect the site. The Fire Department also believes that the single access route to the site as proposed presents a potential adverse impact." LAFD therefore recommended that the project include certain mitigation measures to limit potential fire damage, such as irrigated greenbelts around buildings, noncombustible roofs on structures, regular brush clearance of the area, and the inclusion of fire lanes. The LAFD memorandum also stated, "At least two different ingress/egress roads for each area, which will accommodate major fire apparatus and provide for major evacuation during emergency situations, shall be required." The memorandum concluded, "The inclusion of the above recommendations, along with any additional recommendations made during later reviews of the proposed project[, w]ill reduce the impacts to an acceptable level."

City Planning's determination letter to Snowball included the LAFD's recommended mitigation measures, and stated, "With implementation of mitigation measures, construction of the Project would not be expected to affect the LAFD's ability to respond to emergencies...." City Planning also required that "[a]t least two different ingress/egress roads shall be provided for each area that will accommodate major fire apparatus and provide for major evacuation during emergency situations."

City Planning's findings were not appealed to the City Council, and therefore became final. The zone change was the final approval required for the project to move forward.

2. The City denies the zone change request

The City Council's Planning and Land Use Management Committee (PLUM) considered Snowball's zone change request at a meeting on December 10, 2019. Before the meeting, Snowball submitted a letter to PLUM asking that PLUM recommend approval of the zone change request. Snowball also asserted that under the HAA, it was "entitled to density allowed by the general plan. (Gov. Code Section § 65589.5(a)(j)(4) [sic ].)"

The record also includes hundreds of pages of written messages from the public to PLUM regarding the project, some in favor and many against. Some of the public comments attached newspaper articles or other information about wildfire hazards, traffic, housing, and the environment. One attachment showed more than 2,000 signatures on a change.org petition to "Save Verdugo Hills Golf Course open space say no to Snowball West Development." State Senator Anthony J. Portantino, representative for the 25th District, in which the project is located, submitted a statement that he "join[s] the community in preferring that this entire site be preserved as open space." Retired LAFD chief Andrew P. Fox submitted a letter in support of Snowball, stating that the current undeveloped condition of the property was itself a fire hazard; the community center portion of the housing project could be used for people to "shelter in place" during a wildfire; and the project was close to the freeway, which is good for rapid evacuations.

City Council member Monica Rodriguez, representative for City District 7, in which the project is located, submitted a letter before the meeting recommending that the vesting zone change be denied. The...