Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/06/2018

Home

November 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 21 Zoning Bulletin requirements for Subarea C. However, the City Council granted eight variances, "largely authoriz[ing] the Superstore to be built as proposed." La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Association of Hollywood ("La Mirada") and Citizens Coalition Los Angeles ("Citizens Coalition") (collectively, the "Community Associations") challenged the City Council's grant of variances to Target. The Community Associations al- leged that the variances were not supported by substantial evidence, thereby violating the Los Angeles Municipal Code (the "Code"). The trial court agreed that six of the eight variances were not sup- ported by substantial evidence. Target appealed, and La Mirada cross -appealed. While the appeals were pending, the City Council enacted an amend- ment to the zoning ordinance (the "Amendment"). The Amendment cre- ated a new Subarea F, which was denominated as a "Large Scale Com- mercial Node." Zoning Subarea F allowed for, among other things, less restrictions on height and building facade. The Amendment designated one location as Subarea F: the location where the Superstore was being built. In light of the Amendment the appeals court dismissed the pending appeals as moot, but left the trial court's final judgment intact. Thereafter, and in response to the Amendment, the Community As- sociations filed another petition for writ of mandate. In that petition, they alleged that the City committed "impermissible 'spot zoning' by making the less onerous zoning requirements embodied in Subarea F ap- plicable only to the Superstore.' " The trial court declined to reach the spot zoning issue (but did conclude, on a separate petition, that the City had violated California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")). The City and Target appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Superior Court reversed. The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California, agreed that the Amendment constituted "spot zoning," but also concluded that it was permissible spot zoning "because the [C]ity did not abuse its discre- tion in finding that its amendment . . . was in the public interest and compatible with the general plan . . . ." The court explained that " `[s]pot zoning' occurs when a parcel of land is rezoned to give it fewer or greater rights than the parcels sur- rounding it." The court acknowledged that spot zoning "traditionally refers to the creation of `islands' with more restrictive zoning," but said that spot zoning can also refer to the creation of "islands" with less re- strictive zoning. Moreover, the court emphasized that given the broad legislative discretion of local government zoning, "spot zoning is not necessarily invalid." The court further explained that spot zoning is in- 10 © 2018 Thomson Reuters