217 Cal. App. 4th 1160
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiffs (Latinos Unidos and three individuals) challenged Napa County’s 2009 housing element, density bonus ordinance, and zoning as discriminatory and noncompliant with state housing law and fair housing laws.
- Plaintiffs sought a writ of mandate and declaratory/injunctive relief alleging: (1) the housing element failed to substantially comply with Gov. Code § 65580 et seq.; (2) the county density bonus ordinance conflicted with state density bonus law (§ 65915); and (3) zoning discriminated against low-income persons, Latinos, and people with disabilities.
- Trial court found the housing element substantially complied and ruled for the county on all other claims; plaintiffs appealed.
- The county amended its density bonus ordinance to require that units provided to satisfy the county’s separate inclusionary requirement not count toward the unit thresholds that trigger state-required density bonuses. The inclusionary rule could push a developer to offer a substantially higher percentage of affordable units to qualify for a density bonus.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court on most claims but concluded the county ordinance unlawfully conflicted with the state density bonus law by excluding inclusionary units from the density-bonus qualification calculation, and ordered remand for issuance of a writ to remove that conflict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Napa County’s density bonus ordinance conflicts with Gov. Code § 65915 by excluding inclusionary units from the density-bonus calculation | County ordinance impermissibly requires developers to provide a higher percentage of affordable units than state law by not crediting units that satisfy the county’s inclusionary requirement | The statute’s phrase “seeks and agrees” is ambiguous and permits the county to set higher local thresholds; a savings clause preserves compliance with state law | Held: Ordinance conflicts with § 65915; inclusionary units must count toward state density-bonus thresholds; conflicting local provisions are void and must be removed |
| Whether the trial court erred in finding the county’s housing element substantially complied with state housing-element law | Plaintiffs contended the element failed to substantially comply with statutory planning requirements | County defended element as substantially compliant; trial court agreed | Held: Appellate court affirmed trial court — housing element substantially complied |
| Whether zoning and county ordinances discriminate against affordable housing / protected groups under federal and state fair housing laws and Gov. Code § 65008 | Plaintiffs argued zoning scheme discourages affordable housing, causing disparate impact on Latinos and persons with disabilities | County argued ordinances were lawful and non-discriminatory; trial court found for county | Held: Appellate court affirmed trial court on discrimination claims |
| Whether plaintiffs exhausted administrative remedies for several density-bonus related challenges (e.g., covenants, documentation requirements) | Plaintiffs argued these additional ordinance defects rendered it unlawful | County argued plaintiffs failed to raise these specific issues at the public hearing as required by Gov. Code § 65009(b) | Held: Plaintiffs failed to show exhaustion; appellate court declined to reach those additional arguments |
Key Cases Cited
- Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville, 154 Cal.App.4th 807 (recognizes § 65915 mandatory duty to grant density bonus and that localities cannot impose higher qualifying thresholds)
- Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 4 Cal.4th 893 (conflicting local law is preempted and void)
- Shea Homes Ltd. P’ship v. County of Alameda, 110 Cal.App.4th 1246 (savings clause in local measure can preserve compliance with state obligations where it provides effective mechanisms)
- Camp v. Board of Supervisors, 123 Cal.App.3d 334 (standard for judicial review of general plan/housing element substantial compliance)
- People v. Cornett, 53 Cal.4th 1261 (statutory interpretation requires an actual ambiguity before consulting legislative history)