"No Net Loss Law" in California

In 2017, the legislature passed SB 166, modifying the No Net Loss Law, to hold jurisdictions further accountable in addressing the legislature’s policy choice that there is an existing statewide housing crisis. The No Net Loss Law implements the site inventory and zoning obligations placed on local governments by the Housing Element Law.

to the Citys safety element to comply with section 65302(g).

Code § 65300.) [1] Each general plan must have a housing element. (§ 65302(c).) The housing element consists of standards and plans for housing sites in the municipality that shall endeavor to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. [Citations.] ( California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose (2015) 61 Cal.4th 435, 444; see also § 65580 [legislative findings concerning Housing Element Law].)

Codes 65300 and 65302(a). Gov. Code 65300 provides, “Each planning agency shall prepare and the legislative body of each county and city shall adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning. Chartered cities shall adopt general plans which contain the mandatory elements specified in Section 65302.”

Code § 65302(g)(5), and the Map Act; and (3) issuance of a permanent injunction prohibiting and enjoining County from taking action to implement the General Plan update until after the County prepares and certifies an EIR and the return on the writ is discharged.

A claim that the adoption of a general plan amendment renders the general plan internally inconsistent “essentially raises a facial challenge.” (/d., at p. 621.) “This type of challenge is exacting” because it requires a petitioner to establish that the legislation is invalid in the “great majority of cases” or presents a “total and fatal conflict” with applicable law. (/bid.) Moreover, “(t]he adoption of a general plan is a legislative act and is presumed valid.”

A claim that the adoption of a general plan amendment renders the general plan internally inconsistent “essentially raises a facial challenge.” (/d., at p. 621.) “This type of challenge is exacting” because it requires a petitioner to establish that the legislation is invalid in the “great majority of cases” or presents a “total and fatal conflict” with applicable law. (/bid.) Moreover, “(t]he adoption of a general plan is a legislative act and is presumed valid.”

A claim that the adoption of a general plan amendment renders the general plan internally inconsistent “essentially raises a facial challenge.” (/d., at p. 621.) “This type of challenge is exacting” because it requires a petitioner to establish that the legislation is invalid in the “great majority of cases” or presents a “total and fatal conflict” with applicable law. (/bid.) Moreover, “(t]he adoption of a general plan is a legislative act and is presumed valid.”

A claim that the adoption of a general plan amendment renders the general plan internally inconsistent “essentially raises a facial challenge.” (/d., at p. 621.) “This type of challenge is exacting” because it requires a petitioner to establish that the legislation is invalid in the “great majority of cases” or presents a “total and fatal conflict” with applicable law. (/bid.) Moreover, “(t]he adoption of a general plan is a legislative act and is presumed valid.”

A claim that the adoption of a general plan amendment renders the general plan internally inconsistent “essentially raises a facial challenge.” (/d., at p. 621.) “This type of challenge is exacting” because it requires a petitioner to establish that the legislation is invalid in the “great majority of cases” or presents a “total and fatal conflict” with applicable law. (/bid.) Moreover, “(t]he adoption of a general plan is a legislative act and is presumed valid.”

A claim that the adoption of a general plan amendment renders the general plan internally inconsistent “essentially raises a facial challenge.” (/d., at p. 621.) “This type of challenge is exacting” because it requires a petitioner to establish that the legislation is invalid in the “great majority of cases” or presents a “total and fatal conflict” with applicable law. (/bid.) Moreover, “(t]he adoption of a general plan is a legislative act and is presumed valid.”

The court also stated in the ruling: “The County responded to comment numbers S-5-1 and S-5-2: “The Department notes that the TGPA does not include information required under Government Code Section 65302 as part of the General Plan Safety Element. The TGPA is a targeted amendment to the County’s General Plan. It is not intended to include all possible amendments, even those intended to bring the General Plan into compliance with the Government Code.

Each city must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the city. §65300. A general plan consists of a statement of development policies [&] setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals. §65302.) A general plan includes multiple elements: land use, circulation (movement of people and vehicles), housing, conservation, open space, noise, safety, and environmental justice. Ibid .

Consistent with the author’s statement, the Legislature declared in SB 166 that the No Net Loss Law is a reform to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing. §§ 65582.1; 65582.1(i).

Section 65583(h) includes an express provision that “[a]n action to enforce the program elements of the housing element shall be brought pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” There is no such enforcement language in section 8899.50. These program requirements found in section 65583 will not apply until January 1, 2021. (Id. § 65583, subd. (c)(9)(C).)

The amendment itself may not be internally inconsistent, or cause the general plan as a whole to become internally inconsistent (Gov.Code, § 65300.5), or to become insufficiently comprehensive (id., § 65300), or to lack any of the statutory specifications for the mandatory elements of the general plan set forth in Government Code section 65302. (See Garat v. City of Riverside, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at pp. 293–294, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 504.)

Finally, insofar as Oak Hill is arguing that the General Plan as amended is inconsistent with the prior version of the General Plan, as opposed to being internally inconsistent, the argument lacks merit. (See, Gov. Code, § 65358, subd. (a) [“[i]f it deems it to be in the public interest, the legislative body may amend all or part of an adopted general plan”].) On November 19, Richland provided the Court with a copy of the recent Court of Appeal opinion in Denham, LLC v.

and objectives. (§ 65583, subds.

According to Respondents, the proposed development did not comply with Respondents zoning and general plan because its density of 62 dwelling units per acre is higher than the density specified in Respondents zoning ordinance and general plan; because the proposed development did not include as much outdoor space as Respondents required; and because it did not employ the architectural styles preferred by Respondents zoning ordinance and general plan, instead opting for a clean contemporary look.

The court hereby ORDERS the City’s authority to issue any building permits, zone changes or variances, or subdivision maps for any community commercial, neighborhood commercial, mixed use, or industrial properties located in the following areas suspended until the City has substantially complied with Government Code section 65583: West Pico Corridor Specific Plan (including Calle de Industrias, Calle de Los Molinos, and the Staples Shopping Center); South El Camino Real; North El Camino Real; Del Mar/El Camino

For purposes of this section, the Parties acknowledge that the General Plan updates and zoning changes described below will not be completed by October 31, 2019, but agree that the adopted Housing Element will substantially comply with all other requirements of Housing Element Law as of October 31, 2019. f. Four-Year Revision and Public Participation. The City shall, by November 15, 2020, adopt a Four-Year Revision pursuant to Government Code section 65588€(4).

Petitioners did not make a specific request that the Town approve the General Plan changes. In addition, the General Plan amendment has many of the same inconsistencies with the General Plan as the proposed development proposal. (AR 009-12, 4962, 5320-5322.) For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that the Town did not abuse its discretion in denying the request to amend the General Plan. 4. Failure to Certify Final EIR Petitioners allege that the Town should have certified the final EIR.

General Plan Amendments The City denied Petitioners’ request for a General Plan Amendment (GPA 17-001).

Section 65751 provides that “[a]ny action to challenge a general plan or any element thereof on the grounds that such plan or element does not substantially comply with the requirements of Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) shall be brought pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

Section 65751 provides that “[a]ny action to challenge a general plan or any element thereof on the grounds that such plan or element does not substantially comply with the requirements of Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) shall be brought pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

Section 65751 provides that “[a]ny action to challenge a general plan or any element thereof on the grounds that such plan or element does not substantially comply with the requirements of Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) shall be brought pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

Section 65751 provides that “[a]ny action to challenge a general plan or any element thereof on the grounds that such plan or element does not substantially comply with the requirements of Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) shall be brought pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

Section 65751 provides that “[a]ny action to challenge a general plan or any element thereof on the grounds that such plan or element does not substantially comply with the requirements of Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) shall be brought pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

Section 65751 provides that “[a]ny action to challenge a general plan or any element thereof on the grounds that such plan or element does not substantially comply with the requirements of Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) shall be brought pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

Section 65751 provides that “[a]ny action to challenge a general plan or any element thereof on the grounds that such plan or element does not substantially comply with the requirements of Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) shall be brought pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

As the City did not address the Commission's argument that it would raise a separate cause of action based on the No Net Loss Law, it appears that argument is unopposed. The City also argues the Commission's interest is adequately represented by the People because they both seek to force the City to approve 13,368 housing units. However, the City's argument does not negate that the Commission provides a wider perspective from the interests of the members it represents.

The General Plan is considered the “constitution” for all future developments within a city, and the propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends on consistency with the General Plan and its elements. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 570. The San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code also requires that a project’s conditional use permit, tentative map, architectural control and grading plan all comply with the General Plan.

Defendants have presented no evidence to dispute the County’s position that the General Plan designates the land as RR and commercial parking is not lawful without a permit. There is no evidence that Defendants have ever applied for or sought a permit for commercial parking use. While the County may not have enforced the General Plan designation, use for commercial parking under the General Plan was/is not lawful.

It is not apparent from the face of the Third Amended Complaint that in all respects the 2014 General Plan is merely a restatement of the 1993 General Plan and/or that the 2014 General Plan in no way constitutes a new or different burden on Plaintiff. See Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 253, 266. As the Court is not satisfied that the applicable statutes of limitations necessarily, as opposed to possibly, bar all claims, the demurrers on that ground fail.

And under the applicable standard for court review, if the court finds the General Plan language unambiguously prevents such treatment services, the writ petition should be granted; if ambiguous, the writ petition should be denied? 2. Although CITY’s opposition claimed that water services were a police power, and any general plan restricting them being provided beyond city limits would be unconstitutional, has any case ever so held? 3.

And under the applicable standard for court review, if the court finds the General Plan language unambiguously prevents such treatment services, the writ petition should be granted; if ambiguous, the writ petition should be denied? 2. Although CITY’s opposition claimed that water services were a police power, and any general plan restricting them being provided beyond city limits would be unconstitutional, has any case ever so held? 3.

And under the applicable standard for court review, if the court finds the General Plan language unambiguously prevents such treatment services, the writ petition should be granted; if ambiguous, the writ petition should be denied? 2. Although CITY’s opposition claimed that water services were a police power, and any general plan restricting them being provided beyond city limits would be unconstitutional, has any case ever so held? 3.

And under the applicable standard for court review, if the court finds the General Plan language unambiguously prevents such treatment services, the writ petition should be granted; if ambiguous, the writ petition should be denied? 2. Although CITY’s opposition claimed that water services were a police power, and any general plan restricting them being provided beyond city limits would be unconstitutional, has any case ever so held? 3.

The consistency doctrine requires projects to be consistent with the general plan, i.e. the project will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment. (Id.) Petitioner has provided no explanation for why the general plan’s limitations do not apply to its property. Nor has Petitioner provided any authority that a conditional use permit does not require compliance with the general plan.

City of San Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110, 118 [affirming sustaining of demurrer to property owner’s declaratory relief cause of action regarding potential effect of a general plan provision on his land].) Here, plaintiff does not purport to challenge the General Plan. However, because the General Plan takes priority over zoning regulations, and because inconsistent zoning ordinances must be amended to conform to the General Plan, his challenge amounts a challenge of the General Plan. (See Gov.

General Plan Consistency “The general plan is the fundamental source of local land use policy and law, and heads up the hierarchy of government review as the ‘constitution for all future developments.’” Ideal Boat & Camper Storage v. County of Alameda, 208 Cal. App. 4th 301, 311 (2012)(internal citation omitted). Accordingly, Government Code section 65860 requires local zoning ordinances be consistent with the general plan.

The minute order from 4/28/09 states, "The Court finds/orders: Hearing re General Plan / Appraisement and Inventory (PRC) hearing continued to 5/12/2009 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom J6. Ms. Shea states she will contact conservators to inquire of the filing of the general plan and as to why letters have not been issued." The general plan was filed on 4/30/09, but Letters have still not been issued.

Nonetheless, the Planning Department through its Director, was one of the entities specially authorized to initiate a General Plan Amendment. The Department’s decision not to initiate a General Plan Amendment was final in December 2018. Statute of Limitations – Zone Change Request In paragraphs 31 -34 of the Petition, Petitioner alleges that on December 27, 2018 Petitioner attempted to file its zone change application [and General Plan Amendment request] a “final time.”

At the time it approved the Map, the CPC found the Map was: “consistent with the General Plan and applicable specific plans. The proposed tract map is consistent with the General Plan and applicable specific plans. The proposed tract map is consistent with the General Plan Framework, the [Community Plan], the [Specific Plan], the Housing Element and the Mobility Plan 2035.” (3 AR 484; see also 13 AR 2295.)

Moreover, to find that section 65009 is not applicable to a denial to adopt a general plan amendment or zone change would create two different statute of limitations with respect to the same land use decision. As for Petitioner’s argument that this is a proceeding for an administrative mandamus, it is well settled that rezoning and amendment of a general plan are legislative acts to be reviewed by traditional mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085.

Petitioners allege without specificity that the Project frustrates a number of Land Use and Community Character elements of the General Plan, i.e., General Plan, Land Use Element, Goals LU-2 to LU-4, General Plan, Land Use Element, Policies P1.1, P4.3 and P5.4, General Plan, Community Character Element, Policy P9.3. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they exhausted their administrative remedies with respect to these challenges.

How much progress the City has made in the General Plan Amendment process so far; 5. Why the City believes plaintiffs’ rights will vest before the City is ready for a vote on the General Plan Amendment.

That section provides in pertinent part: “If the Community Development Director determines that a requested change of zone is inconsistent with the Jurupa Valley General Plan, the application will not be processed until the General Plan is amended and request is consistent with the General Plan.” First, Plaintiff is not seeking an amendment of the General Plan.

That section provides in pertinent part: “If the Community Development Director determines that a requested change of zone is inconsistent with the Jurupa Valley General Plan, the application will not be processed until the General Plan is amended and request is consistent with the General Plan.” First, Plaintiff is not seeking an amendment of the General Plan.

That section provides in pertinent part: “If the Community Development Director determines that a requested change of zone is inconsistent with the Jurupa Valley General Plan, the application will not be processed until the General Plan is amended and request is consistent with the General Plan.” First, Plaintiff is not seeking an amendment of the General Plan.

Petitioner argues that the Referendum Proponents were required to attach these extrinsic sections of the General Plan. However, as pointed out by the opposition, the language referring to the General Plan is not in the GPA Resolution itself or even in any language actually being amended by the GPA Resolution.

Consistency with General Plan a. Internal Consistency of General Plan The Hollywood Community Plan (“HCP”), a land use element of the City’s General Plan, was adopted in 1988 to serve as “an official guide to the future development of the [Hollywood] Community.” (AR 20520-21.)

There is no general plan on file. The court intends to continue the status hearing 30 days to allow the conservator to file the general plan.

This leads it to conclude that the agreement did not obligate or mandate the Board of Supervisors to interpret the County General Plan in a specific way that supports the Project’s approval, merely that it was “not impossible for it to do so.” However, County’s ultimate conclusion that it was not “obligated or mandated to interpret the County General Plan to support the Project’s approval” is not the declaration YCS seeks.

The Court intends to continue this hearing for conservator to file the general plan required by Local Rule 10.02(I). The 60-day evaluation does not meet the requirements of the general plan.

Status re: General Plan and I & A: The Level of Care Plan was filed on 05/08/09. The I & A was filed on 04/24/09. The General Plan has not been filed.

Thus, the language “attributable to” is likened to “caused by”and “influenced by.”Analysis Here, ACE proffers evidence that the General Plan Designation and Zoning Change are attributable to the Durfee Avenue Grade Separation Project. On October 28, 2014, Pico Rivera adopted General Plan Amendment No. 53, which updated the general plan. RJN, Exh. B, pp. 2-4. The Amendment discusses the Durfee Avenue Corridor Plan, which includes the subject property. RJN, Exh. A., p. 3-34.

Petitioner contends that the Policies were incorporated into the General Plan as “mitigation measures,” citing AR 938. However, AR 938 does not state that the policies constitute mitigation measures. It simply states that “no mitigation is required.” In fact, the General Plan EIR specifically provides that the “policies, and implementation actions of the proposed General Plan and the SCs are not considered as mitigation measures under CEQA.” (AR 629.)

Respondents then argue that because the Commission is the decision-making body for the general plan, CEQA imposes an affirmative duty on the Commission to review the final EIR and certify it before approving the general plan.

Respondents then argue that because the Commission is the decision-making body for the general plan, CEQA imposes an affirmative duty on the Commission to review the final EIR and certify it before approving the general plan. In support of this argument.

Section 65915(o)(2) therefore clarifies that if the general plan and zoning are inconsistent, the general plan prevails: If the density allowed under the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the land use element of the general plan, the general plan density shall prevail.

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act seeking the court to direct the County to void its project approval amending the General Plan policies formerly adopted as part of the 2004 General Plan to protect oak woodlands. On November 21, 2017 petitioner filed a request and election to prepare the record of proceedings. The administrative record has not been lodged.

Ultimately, the Court denied every request for relief, with one exception: failure to designate a land use for the area in question in the General Plan.

This came on for hearing on 11/24/09, the 60 Day Determination of Level of Care Plan and General Plan had not been filed and the Co-conservators were not present in court. The court continued the hearing to 12/22/09. The 60 Day Determination of Level of Care Plan and the General Plan have not been filed as of 12/15/09.

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act seeking the court to direct the County to void its project approval amending the General Plan policies formerly adopted as part of the 2004 General Plan to protect oak woodlands. On November 21, 2017 petitioner filed a request and election to prepare the record of proceedings. The administrative record has been certified and re-certified.

Ultimately, the Court denied every request for relief, with one exception: failure to designate a land use for the area in question in the General Plan.

Code §21083.3, Guideline 15183) The Checklist noted where each impact was cited in the 2030 General Plan EIR, and the relevant General Plan mitigation measures or other uniformly applicable development standards.

Code §21083.3, Guideline 15183) The Checklist noted where each impact was cited in the 2030 General Plan EIR, and the relevant General Plan mitigation measures or other uniformly applicable development standards.

Code §21083.3, Guideline 15183) The Checklist noted where each impact was cited in the 2030 General Plan EIR, and the relevant General Plan mitigation measures or other uniformly applicable development standards.

Code §21083.3, Guideline 15183) The Checklist noted where each impact was cited in the 2030 General Plan EIR, and the relevant General Plan mitigation measures or other uniformly applicable development standards.

Code §21083.3, Guideline 15183) The Checklist noted where each impact was cited in the 2030 General Plan EIR, and the relevant General Plan mitigation measures or other uniformly applicable development standards.

Code §21083.3, Guideline 15183) The Checklist noted where each impact was cited in the 2030 General Plan EIR, and the relevant General Plan mitigation measures or other uniformly applicable development standards.

Code §21083.3, Guideline 15183) The Checklist noted where each impact was cited in the 2030 General Plan EIR, and the relevant General Plan mitigation measures or other uniformly applicable development standards.

Co-Conservators did not file the General Plan or the Level of Care Determination as of 2/2/10 Review Hearing and the court set this OSC hearing. Co-Conservators, parents of conservatee, have not filed the 60-Day Level of Care Determination and the General Plan as of 2/24/10.

The minute order of 10/28/08 required that the 60 Day Determination of Level of Care Plan and General Plan were to be filed before 12/30/08. A status conference was heard in this matter on 1/27/09. Nothing had been filed prior to that hearing. The court continued the hearing to 2/24/09 and later continued it to 3/3/09. The 60 Day Determination of Level of Care Plan and General Plan have still not been filed.

Is it sufficient for the General Plan to commit to complying with all statutory and regulatory constraints? Does the General Plan need to describe more? (See Oakland Heritage Alliance v, City of Oakland {2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884.) 8.

The Citys General Plan The Planning Commission provides recommendations to the City Council on legislative acts such as General Plan amendments, revisions to the Unified Development Code, specific plans, and land use ordinances. RJN Ex. B, p. I-14 (General Plan Introduction). An applicant may file for a General Plan amendment by submitting an application with the Citys Community Development Department. RJN Ex.B, p. I-22.

The Level of Care Determination and the General Plan had not been filed for the 10/27/09 Verification hearing and this OSC was set. This OSC was heard originally on 11/24/09, with the Conservator present. The court continued it to 12/22/09. The Level of Care Determination and the General Plan have not been filed as of 12/15/09.

The FAP alleges in the second cause of action that the City's approval of the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan policy, adopted by Measure N, that requires certain land use changes be approved by a vote of the people. Id. ¶ 103. Respondents argue Measure N does not require a public vote because the Project did not require a general plan amendment or zoning amendment. MPA at 13-14, citing RJN, Ex. L and Ex. A, p.15.

The projects violate CEQA because the GHG mitigation measures are inconsistent with the General Plan and fail to comply with CEQA's standard for ensuring the mitigation is real, permanent and verifiable. 3. Excessive General Plan Amendments Both projects amended the General Plan. As noted, the County approved the projects on the same day.

Counsel is to file a General Plan with the Court as required by Local Rule 10.02(i). With this information the Court can assess whether or not the conservatee's daily care is appropriate. The Court orders no appearance is necessary if General Plan is/are filed 5 days prior to the hearing." Nothing has been filed since the 3/3/09 hearing.

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act seeking the court to direct the County to void its project approval amending the General Plan policies formerly adopted as part of the 2004 General Plan to protect oak woodlands. On November 21, 2017 petitioner filed a request and election to prepare the record of proceedings. The administrative record has not been lodged.

Issue 2: Plan Consistency General Plan According to the City, reference to a General Plan amendment to change the General Plan place type for the McDonald Trust parcels from OS (Open Space) to NI (light industrial) is an in the Initial Study error. (AR 4:130.) Initial Study indicates the project consists of a General Plan amendment. (AR 4:48.)

iv. 5th Cause of Action – General Plan Inconsistency The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. Oak Hill alleges that the Richland Initiative “makes numerous amendments to the City’s General Plan …. [which] do not, and cannot, resolve the inconsistencies” since the Richland Initiative is fundamentally at odds with the General Plan.

Greenhouse Gas ("GHG") Mitigation Local land use approval must be consistent with the General Plan. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 570. A project is inconsistent with a general plan "if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is fundamental, mandatory, and clear." Spring Valley Lake Assn. v. City of Victorville (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 91, 100. The Valiano Project will result in significant GHGs. AR 1219.

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act seeking the court to direct the County to void its project approval amending the General Plan policies formerly adopted as part of the 2004 General Plan to protect oak woodlands. On November 21, 2017 petitioner filed a request and election to prepare the record of proceedings. The administrative record has not been lodged.

Inconsistencies with the General Plan and UCSP "A project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment. Perfect conformity is not required, but a project must be compatible with the objectives and policies of the general plan. A project is inconsistent if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is fundamental, mandatory, and clear." Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v.

Consistency with Citys General Plan A project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment. [Citation.] A given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every general plan policy. [Citation.]

For the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that the County's general plan and zoning ordinances and Measure W do not apply to the Coimty's parcels, but that Irvine's general plan and zoning ordinances do.

A specific, adverse impact on public health or safety does not include inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation.

A specific, adverse impact on public health or safety does not include inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation.

Petitioner is correct that the court in Wollmer essentially determined that there was no inconsistency between the apartment project and the General Plan and zoning, because the General Plan densities were for the general area, not the specific parcels (“cluster” zoning), such that even with the new project, the general area was under the total density limit in the General Plan. (Id., at 1345.) But that was not all the court held.

At the hearing, the parties should be prepared to address the following questions: General Plan Is it Petitioners’ position that the General Plan would never allow “commercial outdoor recreation” (OC Code § 7-9-55.4(a)(5)) in 1A-Rural Residential? Where in the General Plan are there statements that supports the County’s position that the proposed Project is in “harmony” with the terms of the Plan insofar as the Rural Residential designation is concerned? 3.

General Plan Filed; off calendar.

Nature of Proceedings: Hearing: General Plan No tentative.

The General Plan and OMC Do Not Preclude Private, For-Profit Ownership of Land Uses in PS Districts Wilder directs the Court to Chapter 2 of the City's General Plan, specifically the "Land Use Classifications."

Issues relating to the General Plan were also raised.

General Plan[6] Petitioner also challenges both the EIR’s purported failure to analyze the Project’s inconsistency with the General Plan provisions intended to limit sprawl, and the EIR’s position the Project is consistent with the General Plan. (AR 39:20168, 39:20222.) Specifically, Petitioner argues the Project is inconsistent with Land Use Element Goal LU-3, which provides that development patterns in the County should discourage suburban sprawl. (AR 1359:110722.)