Land Use and Development Case Summaries (short form) -

1. PLANNING AND ZONING -

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE V. CITY OF MORENO VALLEY,

26 Cal. App. 5th 689 (2018) -

Based on the language and legislative history of the Development Agreement Statute (Gov’t Code §§ 65864–65869.5), the court held that a development agreement may not be adopted by initiative. The court found it significant that the statute provided that a development agreement is “subject to referendum” but was silent as to initiatives and concluded that its reference to the “legislative body” indicated its intent to delegate power to approve development agreements exclusively to local governments. The court also reasoned that the initiative process was inconsistent with the concept of a development agreement as a contract because an initiative provides no opportunity for the local government to negotiate the agreement’s terms.

HAUSER V. VENTURA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,

20 Cal. App. 5th 572 (2018) -

The County of Ventura denied a conditional use permit that would have allowed tigers to be kept on a 19-acre property located within a half-mile of a residential area. The County found that keeping tigerson the property was not compatible with planned uses in the area and was detrimental to public healthand safety. The owner challenged the decision, arguing that the use was compatible with the County’sopen space zoning and that escaped tigers posed little risk to the public. The court disagreed, pointingto substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting the County’s decision, includingneighbors’ concerns about the tigers supported by evidence of other large-cat attacks, the owner’s lackof formal training, and the property’s proximity to residential units.