The Kennedy Commission v. City of Huntington Beach
E065358
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- Huntington Beach adopted a 2013–2021 housing element (HCD‑approved) allocating RHNA of 1,353 units, with 533 lower‑income units; the Beach Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) was identified in the housing element to accommodate much of that housing.
- In May 2015 the City adopted an amended BECSP that reduced allowable new units from ~4,500 to 2,100, lowered height/density, added commercial ground‑floor requirements, and imposed discretionary review—changes that reduced the available capacity for lower‑income units.
- Kennedy (a nonprofit) and two individual plaintiffs sued, alleging the amended BECSP was inconsistent with the housing element and violated multiple provisions of the Planning and Zoning Law; HCD warned the City its housing element was no longer in compliance after the BECSP amendment.
- The trial court granted a writ, holding the amended BECSP void ab initio under Gov. Code § 65454 because a specific plan must be consistent with the general plan; it ordered the City to cease enforcing the BECSP amendment.
- On appeal the City argued (for the first time) it is a charter city exempt from the statutory consistency requirements unless it adopted them by charter or ordinance; the Court of Appeal took judicial notice of the charter and zoning code and reversed the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a charter city (Huntington Beach) is subject to the statutory consistency requirement for specific plans (§ 65454). | Kennedy: State law requires specific plans be consistent with the housing element; the amended BECSP violated § 65454 and is void. | City: As a charter city, Huntington Beach is exempt from chapter consistency provisions unless it adopted them by charter/ordinance. | Reversed trial court; charter cities are exempt from state consistency rules unless the city expressly adopts them by charter/ordinance, and Huntington Beach did not clearly adopt the § 65454 rule. |
| Whether Huntington Beach’s municipal code or charter implicitly adopted the state consistency requirement. | Kennedy: Zoning ordinance references to consistency and adoption procedures show City adopted the consistency mandate. | City: Ordinance language is ambiguous and does not adopt an express rule making inconsistent specific plans void. | Held City’s ordinances/charter do not clearly adopt § 65454’s voiding rule; exemption remains. |
| Proper remedy when a charter city’s specific‑plan amendment causes the housing element to lose HCD approval. | Kennedy: Void the inconsistent specific plan to protect housing element compliance. | City: The appropriate remedy is to allow the city time to amend its housing element (§ 65754) rather than voiding the specific plan. | Court: Even if the housing element lost compliance, the proper course under the statutory scheme is to allow amendment of the housing element; voiding was not the required remedy here. |
| Whether Kennedy had standing / ripeness to challenge the BECSP amendment. | Kennedy: Plaintiffs directly and beneficially interested; HCD warned City and harm to low‑income housing was concrete. | City: Claims premature because City was amending its housing element and remedy under § 65754 would apply. | Court (following precedent): Issues ripe and Kennedy has standing; but the merits remedy was reversed on charter‑city exemption grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 52 Cal.3d 531 (determination that zoning inconsistent with general plan is invalid at time passed)
- DeVita v. County of Napa, 9 Cal.4th 763 (charter cities have discretion over general plan amendment process and limited applicability of state procedural planning law)
- Garat v. City of Riverside, 2 Cal.App.4th 259 (charter city did not adopt consistency requirement by ordinance; exemption construed strictly)
- Verdugo Woodlands Homeowner etc. Assn. v. City of Glendale, 179 Cal.App.3d 696 (section 65803 exemption for charter cities is narrowly construed but requires express adoption by charter/ordinance to apply state consistency rules)
- Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego, 205 Cal.App.3d 1201 (background on duty of local governments to make zoning consistent with general plan)