Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/31/2013 - Special

Home

December 10, 2012 I Volume 6 ( Issue 23 Zoning Bulletin tory components." Those mandatory components include: identification and analysis of housing needs; identification of adequate sites for housing; a five- year program to implement policies and achieve objectives of the housing ele- ment "through the administration of land use and development controls"; and identification of a sufficient number of sites "that will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to meet the quantified objectives for housing for all income levels." (Government Code § 65583.) As required by the Housing Element Law, Govemment Code § 65583, the City of Carlsbad (the "City") adopted a revised housing element, which identified: an inventory of parcels which would be suitable for low cost hous- ing; and a number of limitations in the land use element of the general plan which the city would change in order to permit the identified parcels to be developed as low cost housing. Friends of Aviara ("Aviara"), a nonprofit corporation composed of residents concerned about protecting the area near the Batiquitos Lagoon, which is lo- cated in the City, filed a timely petition for a writ of mandate. Aviara alleged that the City's adoption of the revision to the housing element of its general plan was unlawful. Aviara said this was because the revision stated that the City would be amending existing land use limitations as they appeared in the land use element of the City's general plan. Aviara alleged that the revision therefore created an improper inconsistency in the general plan. Government Code § 65300.5 states in pertinent part: "the Legislature intends that the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency." Section 65300.5 has been repeatedly construed as requiring "that the elements of the general plan comprise an integrated internally consis- tent and compatible statement of policies." The trial court agreed with Aviara and found the revision as adopted by the City created an impermissible conflict between the housing element and the land use element in the general plan. However, the trial court also found that if the city adopted an appropriate timeline for adoption of the proposed changes, the conflict was permissible. Aviara appealed. It argued that because the revision to the housing element contained needed, but unadopted, revisions to the land use element, the gen- eral plan was unlawfully inconsistent and would remain so notwithstanding adoption of the timeline ordered by the trial court. DECISION: Affirmed. The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California, agreed with the trial court. It held that the City's introduction of inconsistency into the general plan to satisfy state -mandated housing obligations was not unlawful. The court declared that § 65583, subdivision (c)(7) is a clear exception to the requirement of § 65300.5 that general plans be facially consistent. Under that exception, found the court, in the case of housing, the Legislature has permit- ted some inconsistency so long as the means of resolving any inconsistency is also set out (i.e., with timelines for adoption of proposed changes to land use elements). In so holding, the court found that the Government Code "expressly 10 ©2012 Thomson Reuters