Laserfiche WebLink
March 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 5 Zoning Bulletin <br />The court rejected the County and Diocese's argument that since, in this <br />case, the small parcel was given greater rights (rather than more restrictions) <br />than the surrounding property, the rezone was not spot zoning. In the first time <br />ever addressing the specific issue, the court concluded that a spot zone results <br />when a small parcel of land is subject to more or less restrictive zoning than <br />surrounding properties. The court held that the creation of an island of prop- <br />erty with less restrictive zoning in the middle of properties with more restric- <br />tive zoning is spot zoning. <br />The court went on to further explain that "spot zoning may or may not be <br />impermissible, depending on the circumstances." The court said that spot zon- <br />ing may be justified "if a substantial public need exists, . . . even if the private <br />owner of the tract will also benefit." <br />After analyzing many factual findings, the court concluded that, here, <br />substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the creation of the senior <br />residential housing zoning district (by spot zoning) was in the public interest <br />and consistent with the County's general plan and with the NTSP. <br />See also: Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill, 197 Cal. App. <br />4th 1526, 129 Cal. Rptr. 3d 369 (6th Dist. 2011). <br />See also: Tandy v. City of Oakland, 208 Cal. App. 2d 609, 25 Cal. Rptr. 429 <br />(1st Dist. 1962). <br />See also: Case v. City of Los Angeles, 142 Cal. App. 2d 66, 298 P.2d 50 (2d <br />Dist. 1956). <br />See also: Wilkins v. City of San Bernardino, 29 Cal. 2d 332, 175 P.2d 542 <br />(1946). <br />Case Note: <br />Foothill had also argued that the Board's decision to approve the Diocese's Project <br />fostered religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States <br />Constitution. The court rejected this argument, finding the zoning change did not <br />advance religions but rather created a senior housing facility. .. • , <br />-c" <br />Case Note: <br />Foothill had also claimed that the approval of the Project violated the California <br />Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA'). Finding there had been no judgment on the <br />merits as to the issue of compliance with CEQA, the court remanded that issue to the <br />trial court. <br />8 ©2014 Thomson Reuters <br />