Forster-Gill, Inc. v. County of Humboldt CA1/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 4, 2014A137822California6,652 words

Opinion

Opinion

I.

INTRODUCTION

After respondent Humboldt County (the County) declined to issue a zoning clearance certificate for a proposed multifamily residential development on a parcel of real property owned by appellant Forster-Gill, Inc. (Forster-Gill), Forster-Gill filed a petition for a writ of mandate seeking to overturn the denial of the certificate. Through other causes of action in the petition, Forster-Gill also sought to establish that the County had an obligation to rezone the parcel for multifamily residential use, and to approve Forster-Gill’s planned subdivision on a larger tract that included the parcel, all without conducting any further environmental or planning review. Forster-Gill contends this duty is mandated in order to fulfill the County’s obligation under California law to assure an adequate supply of affordable housing for the County’s residents. We affirm the trial court’s judgment denying Forster-Gill’s petition.

II.

FACTS1

Forster-Gill owns a 386-acre property (the Property) in the County near the City of Eureka (the City).2 In October 2006, Forster-Gill submitted a plan to the County under which Forster-Gill proposed to develop the Property into a mixed…

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.