How have courts interpreted the Fair argument test in assessing consistency between a General Plan and a Specific Plan?

have made a determination of consistency, [its] decision must be upheld, regardless of whether we would have made that determination in the first instance." (California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603, 638.)

In Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, it was argued by the Real Parties on appeal that " 'Consistency with any local agency's land use plan or policies . . . is evaluated under the "substantial evidence" ' standard, not the 'fair argument' test." (Id. at p. 933.) The appellate court disagreed. It found, "Because the land use policies at issue were adopted at least in part to avoid or mitigate environmental effects, we consider their applicability under the fair argument test with no presumption in favor of the City." (Id. at p. 934.) Pocket Protectors differs from this case as the Project site here was zoned low density residential, and the General Plan did not override the Specific Plan. The land use policy was not based on mitigating measures.