In Sacramentans for Fair Planning v. City of Sacramento, published on July 18, 2019, the California Court of Appeal rejected challenges to a project based on the principle of zoning uniformity, limiting its application to general law cities and to its statutory foundation. In doing so, the court rejected claims that the zoning uniformity rule was similarly based on constitutional or implied contract principles. This case is also the first published appellate decision to address environmental review under California Senate Bill 375's Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) process.

This case is of interest to developers and local agencies as they reassess the scope of the zoning uniformity rule and the potential to provide a project with exceptions to development standards.  It also provides initial guidance regarding the SCEA process and the opportunity for certain qualifying projects to employ its streamlining provisions.

The City of Sacramento (City) approved the construction of a high-rise condominium project in its Midtown area despite the project's inconsistency with the City's general plan and zoning code standards for building intensity and height. The project featured a 9.22 floor area ratio (FAR), while the general plan and zoning code imposed a maximum FAR of 3.0. Also, the general plan recommended that buildings not exceed six stories, and the zoning code imposed a maximum height of 65 feet, but the project proposed 15 stories and a height of 174 feet. The City approved the project after finding that it complied with its general plan policy LU 1.1.10, which provided: "The City may allow new development to exceed the maximum allowed FAR or density if it is determined that the project provides a significant community benefit." City staff determined that the project provided such community benefits, albeit far less onerous than those typically demanded by Bay Area cities. The trial court denied plaintiff's petition, and the Third District affirmed. 

ZONING UNIFORMITY

First the appellate court rejected plaintiff's argument that the discretion provided to City staff under general plan policy LU 1.1.10 violated the principle of zoning uniformity, which is a concept that zoning regulations must operate and apply equally to all parcels. 

The court first explained that the zoning uniformity requirement in Government Code section 65852 applies only to general law cities, and not charter cities such as Sacramento. The court then rejected arguments that zoning uniformity was derived from either the equal protection or the due process clauses. The City's exercise of its police powers through its general plan was rationally related to a legitimate government interest and therefore did not violate the equal protection clause, and the policy's standard requiring a "significant community benefit" was not so vague as to violate the due process clause. The court also rejected plaintiff's arguments that the project approval constituted "spot zoning," noting that the project site was not given lesser development rights than surrounding parcels, and that spot zoning issues are still tied to legislative approvals such as general plan amendments and rezoning, and are therefore subject to the deferential rational basis test, which was met in this case.

The court then rejected the claim that the zoning uniformity rule was based on a zoning social contract theory as articulated in Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974)11 Cal. 3d 506. The court held that Topanga only analogized zoning to a contract, and that even though zoning "may be based on theories of mutual benefit and reciprocity … there is not constitutional or common law social contract in California that compels zoning legislation and land use permits to meet a standard higher than the rationality and reasonableness required by the Fourteenth Amendment." 

CEQA COMPLIANCE

After laying to rest the principle of zoning uniformity in charter cities, the court went on to uphold the City's use of an SCEA to perform a streamlined environmental review without preparing all of the documents typically required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Plaintiff argued that the metropolitan transportation plan/sustainable community "strategy" under SB 375 lacked specific density and building intensity standards necessary for streamlined environmental review under an SCEA. The court responded that that the strategy's purpose is not to regulate land use for a particular site, but is instead intended to establish a regional pattern of development. So long as this transit priority project was consistent with the strategy, SB 375 authorized the City to review the project pursuant to the SCEA's streamlined provisions. The court also held CEQA authorized the City to rely on prior CEQA review for its general plan and strategy as part of its streamlined review of the project under an SCEA.

CONCLUSION

Both general law and charter cities often cite the zoning uniformity rule as a restriction on their ability to provide a project with changes to a project site's planning and zoning development standards through a negotiated development agreement or similar means. Sacramentans should reduce such concerns for charter cities as they exercise their police powers, even though general law cities still must adhere to Government Code section 65852's statutory uniformity rule.