Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 21 <br />valid "only when it is not in the public interest —that is, when it is <br />`arbitrary,' `irrational,' and `unreasonable.' " Conversely, noted the court, <br />spot zoning will be valid and permissible when: (1) it is in the public <br />interest such as when "there is a reasonable basis for the belief that the <br />[spot zone] has substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or <br />general welfare"; and (2) it is compatible with a general (municipal land <br />use) plan. <br />The court noted that the burden is on the party challenging the spot <br />zoning to show that it is invalid. And, here, the court concluded that the <br />Community Associations had failed to carry that burden. Rather, the <br />court found that the creation of a less restrictive Subarea F for just the <br />Superstore had a "substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals <br />or general welfare." Specifically, the court found that the development <br />would provide: "much needed, convenient, high quality retail shopping <br />center that will serve the existing community in a location that contains <br />under-utilized commercial uses"; "excellent access for goods movement <br />with a minimum disruption to adjacent residential and lower intensity <br />neighborhoods"; and "attractive public streetscapes." Further, the court <br />found that the Amendment and addition of Subarea F was "compatible" <br />with the City's General Plan, as well as a community plan and special <br />plan, because Subarea F provided for development that was "urban <br />scaled, pedestrian friendly, [and] transit oriented." <br />See also: Wilkins v. City of San Bernardino, 29 Cal. 2d 332, 175 P.2d <br />542 (1946). <br />See also: Foothill Connnunities Coalition v. County of Orange, 222 <br />Cal. App. 4th 1302, 166 Cal. Rptr. 3d 627 (4th Dist. 2014). <br />Case Note: <br />The Coznnzunity Associations also alleged in their legal action that the City's <br />environmental report for the proposed Superstore was "deficient," thereby <br />violating the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The trial court <br />found the environmental report sufficient. On appeal, the appeals court found <br />that the City complied with CEQA. <br />Zoning News from Around the <br />Nation <br />NATIONAL <br />In late September 2018, Senator Elizabeth Warren introduced a bill <br />aimed at affordable housing opportunity. The legislation is entitled the <br />American Housing and Economic Mobility Act. Among other things, <br />© 2018 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />