Merritt

Merritt v. City of Pleasanton

Good Law
107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 675·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 437·2001 Daily Journal DAR 5821·89 Cal. App. 4th 1032
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 11, 2001A089834California3,228 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stein, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered after the superior court denied a petition for writ of mandate, filed by appellants, by which they sought to compel the City of Pleasanton (the City) to set aside Measure P, a referendum measure defeated at a June 8, 1999 municipal election. We will affirm.

Background

Appellants are the owners and the proposed developer of a 45.75-acre parcel of property (the Property). The Property is unincorporated, but it is adjacent to, and within the “sphere of influence” of, the City, and thus subject to the City’s general plan. (Gov. Code, § 65859; City of Irvine v. Irvine Citizens Against Overdevelopment (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 868, 877 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 797 ].) The general plan designates the land use for the property as low-density residential. It appears that the City has annexed land on both sides of the Property, which land has been developed as residential subdivisions. The City’s general plan states policies of developing “new housing in infill and peripheral areas . . . adjacent to existing residential development,” and permitting “residential infill in areas where public facilities are adequate to support such development.” The…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.