CORRESPONDENCE - 11A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

manatt Santa Ana City Council December 16, 2019 Page 7 In this case, however, the broader definition of spot zoning as articulated by the court is not even met. As staff noted in its response to comments, the Project zone change to Specific Development (SD) is the same as currently SD zoned areas located to the north of the site and to the west of the site across North Main Street. The proposed change in zoning would in fact provide more consistency with the zoning of nearby areas than the existing project site zoning - Professional (P). hi short, the proposed SD zoning would not result in more or less restrictive zoning than the nearby SD zoned properties. In addition, it should be noted that the Project site is already subject to an overlay zone permitting the conversion of nonresidential uses to residential uses. The overlay zone includes Main Street and adjoining areas and extends from I" Street to the northern City limits evidencing overriding general City policies in favor of residential development in these areas. Even if the SD zone change were to be considered spot zoning, as noted above, the issue becomes whether the spot zoning is an impermissible exercise of the police power. Citing the California Supreme Court case of Wilkins v. City of San Bernardino (1946) 29 Cal.2d 332, the court in the Foothill case applied a two part test applicable to challenges to zoning decisions. First, there must be a clear showing of abuse of legislative discretion. Second, it is incumbent on a party challenging the ordinance to produce sufficient evidence of the physical facts as will justify a court in concluding, as a matter of law, that the ordinance is an unreasonable and unwarranted exercise of the police power. Or paraphrasing the Foothill Communides court's statement of the issue: Was the rezoning and its application to the Project site in the public interest and was the decision arbitrary or capricious or devoid of evidentiary support? (Id.) No such showing has been made in this matter. The City's General Plan goals and policies in its band Use and Housing Elements identify the need to provide a diversity of housing and living experiences to accommodate a wide variety of needs of its residents. Given the need for additional housing in the City and the region, the density and design of the Project address a need for greater variety of residential land uses and thus provide a public benefit in implementing these General Plan goals and policies. As supported by City staffs and the EIR's analysis of the Project's General Plan consistency, the rezoning is not arbitrary or capricious, but is supported by substantial evidence in the record. The fact that the City considered the conversion of nonresidential uses to residential uses within a wide area of the City, including the Project site, is evidence of a considered regional policy in favor of conversions to residential uses. 4. Conclusion. In conclusion, the October 2019 Project has been fully analyzed as required by CEQA in the Draft FIR, Final EIR and the Clarification. There is nothing in the analysis that warrants recirculation of the City's EIR because none of the criteria set forth in the CEQA Guidelines for recirculation have been met. The October 2019 Project is substantially reduced in both size as