legal news


Register | Forgot Password

FONSECA v.CITY OF GILROY PART II
City's 2002 general plan substantially complied with Housing Element Law, as it then read, where the plan provided an aggregate inventory of what the city identified as vacant sites and sites potentially available for development. Law at the time did not require that the inventory identify specific sites both suitable for residential development and available to meet housing needs. Least Cost Zoning Law does not require that city take action to actually rezone a sufficient supply of adequate sites to meet lower income share of need following revision of general plan's housing element. Substantial evidence supported city's contention that implementation of the plan through rezoning, along with another city program, will have a positive effect on the supply of higher density, lower income housing and will satisfy the regional housing need in all income categories, thus complying with the law.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale