Laserfiche WebLink
City of Sams Ana -The Bowery <br />May 11, 2020 <br />Ng,, 24 of 28 <br />III. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE STATE PI.ANNINGAND ZONING <br />LAW AS W ELL AS THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN <br />A_ Background Regarding the Slate Planing and Zoning Law <br />Each California city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long -temp general plan <br />governing development. (Napa Cali ins forHonesd Gov. v. Napa Count , Bd. of Supenison <br />(2001) 91 Cal. App.4th 342, 352, citing Gov. Code §§ 65030, 65300.) The general <br />plan sits at the top of the land use planning hierarchy (See DeVita P. County of Napa <br />(1995) 9 Cal. App- 4th 763, 773), and serves as a "constitution" or "charter" for all <br />future development. (L.esherCommunications, Inc. P. City of 1VafnutCnek (1990) 52 Cal. <br />App. 3d 531, 540.) <br />General plan consistency is "the linchpin of California's land use and development <br />laws; it is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force <br />of law." (See Dobvitari v. Norco Uey Counts! (1985) 171 Cal. App. 3d 1204, 1213.) <br />State law mandates two levels of consistency_ First, a general plan mast be internally <br />or "horizontally" consistent: its elements must "comprise an integrated, internally <br />consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency." (See Gov. <br />Code § 65300.5; Sierra Club v. Bd of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal. App. 3d 698, 704) A <br />general plan amendment thus may not be internally inconsistent, nor may it cause the <br />general plan as a whole to become internally inconsistent. (See DeT/ita, 9 Cal. App. <br />4th at 796 fn. 12.) <br />Second, state law requires "vertical" consistency, meaning that zoning ordinances and <br />other land use decisions also must be consistent with the general plan_ (See Gov. <br />Code § 65860(a)(2) [land uses authorized by zoning ordmance must be "compatible <br />with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the <br />[general] plan."]; see also Neiobborhood_4ctaon Croup P. County ofCalavaras (1984) 156 <br />Cal. App. 3d 1176, 1184.) A zoning ordinance that conflicts with the general plan or <br />impedes achievement of its policies is invalid and cannot be given effect. (See Lesher, <br />52 CO. App. 3d at 544.) <br />State law requires that all subordinate land use decisions, including conditional use <br />permits, be consistent with the general plan. (See Gov. Code § 65860(a)(2); <br />Ngbborhood Aefion Gmup, 156 Cal. App. 3d at 1184.) <br />A project cannot be found consistent with a general plan if it conflicts with a general <br />plan policy that is "fundamcmmlal, mandatory, and clear," regardless of whether it is <br />25 <br />75C-144 <br />