Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Santa Margarita Area Residents Together v. County of San Luis Obispo

California Court of Appeal
84 Cal. App. 4th 221 (2000)


Facts

Santa Margarita Limited (Santa Margarita) owned property in the County of San Luis Obispo (the county) and sought to develop the property. Santa Margarita entered into a development agreement (the agreement) with the county. Per the agreement, zoning on the property would be frozen in return for Santa Margarita’s commitment to submit a specific plan for construction. The specific plan would comply with the county’s land-use requirements. Santa Margarita was required to incorporate the standards in the Salinas River Areas Plan into the specific plan, engage in all necessary environmental review, and dedicate land to be used for a public swimming pool, sewer-treatment plant, and cemetery expansion. In exchange, the county would process, review, and approve or disapprove the specific plan and apply the land-use regulations set forth in the specific plan for up to five years without change. The Agreement was entered into under the authority of California’s Development Agreement Statute, which required that type of agreement to be approved only if the legislative body found that the provisions of the agreement were consistent with the general plan and any specific plan. The agreement satisfied the statute’s requirements. Santa Margarita Area Residents Together (residents) (plaintiff) petitioned for a writ of mandate to set aside the agreement, challenging the plan as contracting away the local government’s police power and violating the California statute. The trial court denied the petition, and the residents appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Perren, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. 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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.