SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Jonathan Lowell October 26, 2015 Page 4 application. Thus, the County's change of course interfered with reasonable investment- backed expectations. If the City were to arbitrarily reduce the size of the project to 10 units, the change of course would also interfere with Lund Ranch's reasonable investment - backed expectations. Third, as to the character of the government action, in Lockaway Storage, the "showstopping U -turn" in the County's position was sufficient to meet this factor. Here, pulling the rug out from under Lund Ranch after four years of processing (as opposed to the two years in Lockaway Storage) and thirteen years since Lund Ranch's original 113 unit application would be just as an egregious action as took place in Lockaway Storage. Simply put, pursuing a 10 -unit alternative that is not based on any objective criteria, but instead on thc request of neighboring property owners, would expose the City to significant takings liability. (c.f. Rom v. City of Yorba Linda (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 954, 962 [ "arbitrary line- drawing is antithetical to the individual right to equal protection of thc law "); see Avenida, supra, 201Cal.App.4th at 1261 [denial of project application was evidence of illegal spot zoning when surrounding property was allowed to develop].) Conclusion Lund Ranch respectfully requests that the City Council approve the 50 -unit project and reject the staff report's option of returning the project back to the Planning Commission to consider a 10 -unit alternative. Very truly yours, C istian H. Ccbrian CHC cc: Nelson Fialho, City Manager 02644017214034v3