Laserfiche WebLink
City of Santa Ana – The Bowery <br />May 11, 2020 <br />Page 24 of 28 <br />III. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE STATE PLANNING AND ZONING <br />LAW AS WELL AS THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN <br />A. Background Regarding the State Planning and Zoning Law <br />Each California city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan <br />governing development. (Napa Citizens for Honest Gov. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors <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 v. County of Napa <br />(1995) 9 Cal. App. 4th 763, 773), and serves as a “constitution” or “charter” for all <br />future development. (Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (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 Debottari v. Norco City Council (1985) 171 Cal. App. 3d 1204, 1213.) <br />State law mandates two levels of consistency. First, a general plan must 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 DeVita, 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 ordinance must be “compatible <br />with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the <br />[general] plan.”]; see also Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (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 Cal. 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 />Neighborhood Action Group, 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 “fundamental, mandatory, and clear,” regardless of whether it is