From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
Denham, LLC v. City of Richmond
California Court of Appeal
254 Cal. Rptr. 3d 289 (2019)
In 2017 the city of Richmond (the city) (defendant) amended its general plan to include the Richmond Hills Initiative (the initiative), which was supported by registered voters in the city. The initiative affected an area of land referred to as Hillside Residential in the city’s general plan. The initiative prohibited residential development in Hillside Residential, with a few exceptions. Hospice facilities were excluded from the residential-development prohibition. The initiative differed from the city’s general plan, under which building both single-family and multifamily residential properties was permitted. Because of the prohibition, the initiative included a transferable-development-credit program, under which owners of property in Hillside Residential were granted credits to build properties in other areas of the city without having to comply with certain land-use regulations. In response to the city’s passage of the initiative as an amendment to the general plan, Denham, LLC, Nikta LLC, and other real property owners within Hillside Residential (collectively, the property owners) (plaintiffs) filed an action in California trial court against the city and the city council (collectively, the city) (defendants). The property owners sought an order requiring the city to vacate the amendment because it caused an internal inconsistency within the general plan. The Sierra Club intervened on the city’s behalf to support the initiative. The Sierra Club argued that the general plan and the initiative were not inconsistent, because (1) the transferable-development-credit program still allowed for property owners affected by the initiative to build property elsewhere in the city, (2) some residential development was permitted, and (3) there was a provision within the general plan recognizing that some areas within Hillside Residential could not become residential areas because of environmental concerns. The Sierra Club argued that the restrictions listed in the initiative expanded on the protected areas within the plan. The trial court rejected the Sierra Club’s arguments and concluded that the general plan and the initiative were inconsistent. The trial court ordered the city to vacate the amendment that adopted the initiative into the plan. The matter was appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which considered the trial court’s holding and remedy.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Tucher, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 604,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.