CORRESPONDENCE - 11A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

manatt Santa Ana City Council December 16, 2019 Page 6 identifies the site as a Gateway; the Project promotes elements of a Gateway by developing the site with a building with attractive architectural features, projecting a positive image for the City of Santa Ana. Courts defer to a City's finding of consistency with its General Plan, which are adopted in accordance with the City Council's legislative capacity, and therefore, the City Council has unique competence to interpret the policies set forth in those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity. (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of tllonterey (2001) 87 Cal.AppAth 99, 142.) Because policies in a general plan reflect a range of competing interests, the governmental agency must be allowed to weigh and balance the plan's policies when applying them, and it has broad discretion to construe its policies in light of the plan's purposes. (Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704.) A reviewing court's role "is simply to decide whether the city officials considered the applicable policies and the extent to which the proposed project conforms with those policies." (Id. at 720.) An action, program, or project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment. (Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.AppAth 807, 817.) Applying these principals, there is substantial evidence to support the City's analysis and its finding that the October 2019 Project is consistent with the City's General Plan. 3. Will Approval of the Project Result in Illegal Spot Zoning? No As noted by one of the individuals commenting on the Project, the definitive case on spot zoning was decided by our Fourth District Court of Appeal in the case of Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange (2014) 222 Cal.AppAth 1302. Our firm served as counsel for the Real Party in Interest (the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange County) in that case. Prior to the Foothill Communities decision, spot zoning cases dealt only where a parcel of property was down -zoned, as compared to the surrounding property, and the owner of the down -zoned property pursued litigation against the government for taking away its property rights on an individual parcel basis. In the Foothill Communities decision, however, the Diocese's property was designated for senior housing which the opponents felt provided an intensification of development as compared to the surrounding single family neighborhoods that adjoined the re- zoned parcel. A situation not unlike the Project before you. While the court noted that there was no published case in California that directly addressed the type of spot zoning where the contested parcel is not down -zoned, but is given greater rights than the surrounding properties, "spot zoning" may occur when a small parcel of land is subject to more or less restrictive zoning than surrounding properties. But, whether a particular "spot zoning" action is illegal or impermissible requires a second step. Once a court determines that a property has been re -zoned so that its zoning is less restrictive than the surrounding properties, it must then examine whether said zoning is warranted. Specifically, the court held that "the rezoning ordinance may be justified, however, if a substantial public need exists, and this is so even if the private owner of the tract will also benefit." (Id. at 1314.)