What is the "No Net Loss Law"?

Useful Rulings on "No Net Loss Law"

Recent Rulings on "No Net Loss Law"

HAROLD FIGUEROA ET AL VS AT&T CORPORATION ET AL

Sunland Housing Group, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 253, 258-59.) “ ‘Casual’ or ‘collateral’ negligence has sometimes been described as negligence in the operative detail of the work, as distinguished from the general plan or method to be followed. Although this distinction can frequently be made, since negligence in the operative details will often not be within the contemplation of the employer when the contract is made, the distinction is not essentially one between operative detail and general method.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

BEHZAD FORAT ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

INSTRUCT the Planning Department, in consultation with Council District Four, to initiate consideration of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, and other City Planning approvals if needed […] to rezone [the Development Property] as R3 and to rezone the [Donation Property] as open space should the City ultimately acquire that parcel.” (FAP ¶ 9; RJN, Exh. 11.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MARTINEZ ET AL. V. CITY OF CLOVIS ET AL.

Adoption of a Housing Element is a mandatory element of the General Plan, and thus is a legislative act. (See Gov. Code § 65301.5.) The adoption of a zoning ordinance is also a legislative act. (See Arnel Dev. Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal.3d 511, 514, 516-522.) However, section 818.2 immunity does not appear to apply here, as section 12955(l) explicitly applies to actions authorized under the Planning and Zoning Law.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

COALITION TO PRESERVE LA, INC., A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES , A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

City of Sacramento (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 698, 716-717 [city council decided fundamental policy issue when it adopted land use policy for general plan, and planning staff authorized to implement]; Golightly v. Molina (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1517 [board of supervisors enacted budget, and properly delegated to county CEO the authority to execute certain contracts using board appropriated funds].)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DARBY T. KEEN VS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, ET AL.

After the public hearing, the City Council discussed potential quality of life and health and safety issues resulting from STRs and the importance of protecting the character of the City’s residential neighborhoods as stated in the goals and policies of the City’s Housing Element of its General Plan and LCP, as well as the purpose sections of the MBMC’s and LCP’s zoning codes. AR 304, 307. Councilmembers expressed concerns regarding enforcement of commercial and transient uses in residential zones.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

COALITION FOR AGRICULTURAL RIGHTS V. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

First, Petitioner argues that the County ignored the County’s Code and State Planning and Zoning law requiring it to analyze any amendment to the zoning code and provide a “written recommendation to the Board…giving the reasons for the recommendation and the relationship of the proposed amendment to the affected elements of the General Plan.” (County Code, § 22.70.040(C); Gov. Code, § 65855.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

CHIQUITA CANYON LLC VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Section 66848(a) states that the local ordinance must satisfy various requirements, including: (1) refer to relevant parts of the general plan; (2) provide for a public hearing; and (3) provide “that at the public hearing the boundaries of the area of benefit, the costs, whether actual or estimated, and a fair method of allocation of costs to the area of benefit and fee apportionment are established.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LUMINA V. UMINA

A city’s or county’s adoption of a general plan for its physical development is a legislative act. (Yost v. Thomas, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 570, 205 Cal.Rptr. 801, 685 P.2d 1152; DeVita, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 773, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 699, 889 P.2d 1019; Gov. Code, § 65300.) [Footnote omitted.] Adoption or amendment of a specific plan for the systematic implementation of the general plan is also a legislative act. [Footnote omitted.]

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

LUMINA V. UMINA

A city’s or county’s adoption of a general plan for its physical development is a legislative act. (Yost v. Thomas, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 570, 205 Cal.Rptr. 801, 685 P.2d 1152; DeVita, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 773, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 699, 889 P.2d 1019; Gov. Code, § 65300.) [Footnote omitted.] Adoption or amendment of a specific plan for the systematic implementation of the general plan is also a legislative act. [Footnote omitted.]

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

GARCIA VS CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS BY NADINE GARCIA, JAMES MARMOR, HELEN O'NEILL-POTTERY

After negotiations the parties entered into a stipulated settlement, wherein Petitioners assert they achieved nearly all of the relief sought in their petition, including a judgment ordering the City to adopt a Fifth Cycle Housing Element regarding zoning and the General Plan to accommodate lower-income housing and to engage in robust public participation efforts when it adopts a four-year revision to its Fifth Cycle Housing Element.

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2020

GARCIA VS CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR ENFORCE JUDGMENT BY NADINE GARCIA, JAMES MARMOR, HELEN O'NEILL-POTTERY

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).

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

YCS INVESTMENTS, INC. VS THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2020

BRUZZONE VS. TOWN OF MORAGA

“[A] city's land use decisions must be consistent with the policies expressed in the general plan. [Citation.] ‘ “[T]he propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 815; see also Gov. Code Section 65300.5.) “The adoption or amendment of a general plan is a legislative act. (Gov.

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2020

PACIFIC PALISADES RESIDENTS ASSN INC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LA MIRADA AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OF HOLLYWOOD VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

The Class 32 Exemption applies when: (a) the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) the project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) approval of the project would not result in any significant effects

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SIERRA CLUB VS. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [EFILE]

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF SACRAMENTO VS. SACRAMENTO COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

In reviewing this issue, [Sacramento] LAFCo is guided by its own local policies, as well as the existing General Plan policies. Based on the documents provided. has a reasonable expectation of demand for the acreage requested for inclusion in the City's SOI to accommodate future growth. f.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

The decisions at issue include the City and City Council’s approval of (1) an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), (2) a General Plan Amendment, (3) Zone and Height District Changes, (4) a Conditional Use for Alcohol, (5) a Finding of Convenience and Necessity for an Offsite Alcohol License and Conditional Use Permits for on-site alcohol consumption, (6) a Zoning Administrator’s Interpretation regarding yards, (7) a Site Plan Review and other land use entitlements. (Compl. ¶ 3.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

MCCANN VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

It assesses greenhouse gas emissions against the City's Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist and determines the gas emissions are less than significant since the project is consistent with the General Plan, Community Plan, and all land use and zoning designations. See Tab 16, AR 108-109.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COLLABORATIVE ET AL VS CITY OF L A ET

FTC contended, among other things, that the Project violated the City’s zoning ordinances, the City’s General Plan, and CEQA. B. EJC Case On May 6, 2016, Petitioners Environmental Justice Collaborative and Friends of the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative (collectively “EJC”) filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief against the City (case no. BS162453) (“EJC Case”). EJC sought to set aside the City’s approval of the Project based on violations of CEQA. C.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DONALD MCPHERSON ET AL VS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH ET AL

Second, the City Council found that the location of the use and conditions under which it would be operated is consistent with the General Plan, it will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use, and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the City. AR 829.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2020

JOHN DOE ET AL VS DEAN C LOGAN

However, the Legislature had passed statutes requiring that cities and counties “adopt a general plan for the future development, configuration and character of the city or county and require that future land use decisions be made in harmony with that general plan.” ((Id. at p. 880.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ELFIN FOREST HARMONY GROVE TOWN COUNCIL VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

NEWTOWN PRESERVATION SOCIETY V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

“If mitigation is feasible but impractical at the time of a general plan or zoning amendment, it is sufficient to articulate specific performance criteria and make further approvals contingent on finding a way to meet them.” (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 793 [32 Cal.Rptr.3d 177].)” (Emphasis added.) (City of Hayward v. Trustees of California State University (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 854.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

ELFIN FOREST HARMONY GROVE TOWN COUNCIL VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]

General and Specific Plan Inconsistencies Petitioners argue the Harmony Grove Project is inconsistent with the 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." Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 238.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 18     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.