Twain Harte Homeowners v. County of Tuolumne
California Court of Appeal
188 Cal. Rptr. 233 (1982)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
California’s Planning and Zoning Law § 65000 required that the board of supervisors of each county adopt a general plan, or comprehensive plan, for development of county land. The general plan had to comprise nine elements, including a land-use element. The land-use element needed to include a statement of standards for population density and building intensity. Accordingly, the County of Tuolumne (defendant) adopted the Tuolumne County General Plan (the plan). The plan provided specific population densities for only urban-residential uses, which were expressed in terms of maximum dwelling units per acre. For residential/agricultural uses and resource lands, the plan stated densities only in terms of minimum lot sizes. With respect to all other areas, such as areas designated for commercial, industrial, and public/institutional/school uses, no densities were provided. Regarding building intensity, the only standard included in the plan was the maximum dwelling units per acre. There were classifications such as commercial-neighborhood, light industrial, and heavy industrial in the plan, but they provided little guidance on height or size limitations, types of buildings allowed, or permitted uses. Twain Harte Homeowners (plaintiffs) challenged the Tuolumne County General Plan as insufficient under California’s Planning and Zoning Law. The trial court found that the plan sufficiently complied with statutory requirements.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Morony, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.