## Facts

- A Catholic diocese and a developer proposed a senior living community on diocese-owned land in an unincorporated area of Orange County within the North Tustin Specific Plan (NTSP) area.
- The site was designated for single-family residential use under the NTSP.
- The County had a general plan and the NTSP; both included objectives encouraging housing opportunities for seniors.
- To accommodate the project, the County board of supervisors amended the NTSP to create a “senior residential housing” district and redesignated the project site into that new district.
- The County found the amendment and project consistent with the general plan and the NTSP.
- A community coalition challenged the approvals, alleging impermissible spot zoning, inconsistency with governing plans, CEQA violations, and unconstitutional favoritism toward a religious landowner.

## Issues

1. Whether the NTSP amendment and rezoning constituted impermissible spot zoning.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the County’s findings that the amendment and project were consistent with the general plan and specific plan.
3. Whether the rezoning violated the federal or state constitutional prohibitions on establishment of religion.
4. Whether unresolved CEQA claims required further proceedings after reversal of the judgment based on spot zoning.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment granting mandate relief on the ground of impermissible spot zoning.
- The court held the County’s action was spot zoning (creating an “island” of less restrictive zoning), but it was permissible because it served the public interest and was supported by substantial evidence of consistency with plan policies favoring senior housing.
- The court rejected the establishment-of-religion challenge because the amendment was justified by secular land-use purposes and was not limited to religious property.
- The case was remanded for the trial court to address CEQA issues not previously decided.
- An appeal from a related postjudgment order was dismissed as moot.

## Legal Principles

- Spot zoning may occur when a small parcel is zoned either more restrictive or less restrictive than surrounding property.
- A spot-zoning challenge requires a two-step inquiry: (1) whether differential zoning created an “island” inconsistent with surrounding zoning, and (2) if so, whether the differential treatment is in the public interest; only spot zoning lacking a public-interest justification is impermissible.
- Amendments to a specific plan and related rezoning are valid exercises of local police power when supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the general plan and applicable specific plan requirements.
- Courts review legislative land-use consistency findings under a deferential substantial-evidence standard.
- A zoning action benefiting a religious landowner does not violate the Establishment Clause where it is grounded in neutral, secular land-use objectives and is not a religiously targeted preference.
- When a trial court resolves a land-use case on non-CEQA grounds and does not reach CEQA claims, reversal on the dispositive ground warrants remand for CEQA determinations in the first instance.

## Conclusion

The court held that although the County’s rezoning created an “island” of different zoning, it was permissible spot zoning supported by substantial evidence of plan consistency and a public-interest justification (senior housing), rejected constitutional claims of religious favoritism, and remanded for adjudication of unresolved CEQA issues.


Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange, 166 Cal. Rptr. 3d 627 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)