Selma council denies Lavina/Crown Homes subdivision after legal fight over plan consistency

The Selma City Council voted on June 2 to deny the Lavina (Track 6514) tentative subdivision map, annexation and prezoning requested by Crown Development after a lengthy public hearing and legal debate over whether the proposed R14 zone is consistent with Selma’s general plan.

Planning staff described the project as an approximately 78-acre annexation with roughly 53 acres proposed for development subdivided into 237 single-family lots, two neighborhood parks totaling 4.3 acres, and a ponding basin. Staff’s density calculation showed the project would produce about 4.5 dwelling units per acre, under the plan’s maximum of 242 units for the site, and recommended introduction of an ordinance to prezone the property R14 and approve a CEQA (CEQA Guideline §15183) exemption.

City Attorney provided a written legal opinion at the hearing saying that although the proposed subdivision map may be consistent with the zoning, the R14 zoning designation itself is inconsistent with table 1.1 of the city’s general plan, which the attorney said lists only R17 and R19 as the zones appropriate for the plan’s low- and medium-low-density categories. "My legal opinion is that this particular subdivision map is consistent with the zoning, but the zoning is inconsistent with the general plan, which means the subdivision map cannot be approved," the City Attorney told council during the hearing.

Developer representatives and outside counsel disputed that reading. Dirk Pushel, representing Crown Development, said the application has been in process since 2024 and that the city and staff had previously treated the R14 zone as compatible with the general plan. Outside counsel John Kinsey urged the council that state law — specifically provisions the attorney and developer cited in the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code §65889.5) — limits the council’s discretion and can require approval where objective standards are met: "This council has no discretion to deny this project. It simply lacks the discretion to deny the project. It must approve the project," Kinsey said.

Neighbors opposed the project at the public hearing, citing long-standing expectations of low-density development in the Roen/Mil Street area, potential traffic and water-supply concerns, and investment-backed expectations for large-lot homes. Gary Jorgensson, who said he lives on Roen Avenue, told the council, "I invested my money and everything in this town because I wanted to be part of this town. And now I almost feel like I'm betrayed by this town." Several speakers asked council to respect the earlier general-plan designations for that neighborhood.

Council members debated the competing legal interpretations and community concerns before voting to deny the project. The roll-call vote recorded four votes in favor of denial and one against; the official meeting minutes record the motion carried. Council members cited the general plan’s table of appropriate zones and the city attorney’s legal analysis in explaining their votes.

Next steps: because the application included annexation and prezoning, denial at council ends processing in its current form. The developer may choose to revise the project, propose a different prezoning (the city attorney earlier suggested R17 as one lawful alternative) or pursue other legal remedies. The city attorney referenced recent case law emphasizing that determinations of plan consistency are discretionary judgments for the council, but instructed that such determinations must be supportable by substantial evidence in the record.

Authorities referenced in the hearing included local general plan policies and Gov. Code §65889.5 (Housing Accountability Act); staff also cited CEQA Guideline §15183 in the environmental exemption analysis. The council’s statement at the meeting directed staff to review zoning ordinance text in follow-up to avoid similar ambiguities in future projects.