Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2006

Home

ssB4 (s984), the California Court of Appea~s held that a finding of consistency based on an inadequate general ptan was a legal impossi- bility. Chal[en§es to the adequacy of the com- prehensive plan. however, require some con- nection bet~veen the particular approval and the claimed inconsistency ~n the pian; see Garatv. Riverside, 2 Cai, App, 4th zs~ (t991). Another important pdndple is that all e~ements of a general plan have equal legal status. For example, in Sierr~ Club v. Board of 5uperWsors of Kern County. ~.z6 Cai. App, 3d 698 (t98D, the California Cour~ of Appeals struckdown a provision in the general plan that stated if there is a conflict between the land-use element and the open space ele- ment, the land-use element controls. Recog- hensive planning, the court found Ihat no element [s lo§ally subordinate to another. "SHALL" V$, "SHOULD" Assuming a local comprehensive p{an meets al[ the procedural and substantive require- (or inconsistency) is supported by the facts. mandatory policy, and ~shou~d" or "may," One example is the Supreme ludicial Court of Maine's decision [n Adeiman v. Town of B~ldwin, 2000 ME 9~; 750 A.2d 577. The vision tower. The citizens argued that an amendment to the town's zoning ordinance, which added communication towers as a con- ditional use in the highlands and rural areas, was inconsistent with the town's comprehen- sive plan. In support of their argument, the cit- izens relied on four sections of the compre- hensive plan that referenced restrictin§ development in the high[ands and protecting the rural character of the community. The court found that the citizens did not prove the noted that the sections of the comprehensive p~an cited by the citizens did not mandate action but merely suggested recommended tions used mandatory language such as "must" or "shall." The court, therefore, found also noted four other sections of the compre- hensive plan that could be interpreted to cations tower. Another example ~s the California Court of Appeals decision in Families Unafraid to Uphold f2ural El Don:do County v. El Dorado County Board ofSuperWsors, 6z Cai. App, ~th t33~ (t998). The case involved a challenge by a city. a land conservancy, and a citizen grOUb to the county's approval of a Iow-density resi- dential subdivision of 566 lots on 7.868 acres. While the proposed development was consis- tent with the land-use map of the general plan, the court found that the proposed deve~- damentaL mandatory, and specific" po[icy of the land-use eiement of the county's general plan. The policy at issue stated that Iow-den- sity residential uses ~shall be further restricted rural centers.., and shall not he assigned to