Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange
California Court of Appeal
166 Cal. Rptr. 3d 627 (2014)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange (the Diocese) and Kisco Senior Living, LLC (Kisco) sought to build a senior living community on a parcel of land owned by the Diocese (the project) in the North Tustin area of Orange County (defendant). The Diocese and Kisco submitted a project design plan to the county. The North Tustin Specific Plan (NTSP) regulated the development of properties within its boundaries. The county had a general plan of objectives and housing goals for the entire county, whereas the NTSP was more detailed and focused on specific parts of the community. Both plans had goals of encouraging housing for senior citizens. The county had the power to amend the NTSP as necessary. Under the NTSP, the project site was zoned as a residential single-family district. After conducting hearings, the Orange County board of supervisors amended the NTSP. The board added a new zoning district for senior residential housing and changed the land-use district for the project to the new senior residential housing designation. Foothill Communities Coalition (Foothill) (plaintiff), an association of community groups and area homeowners, challenged the board’s decisions by petitioning for a peremptory writ of mandate. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Foothill, finding that the board’s acts constituted impermissible spot zoning. The County of Orange appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fybel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.