California Court of Appeal

Measure D, which revises the urban growth boundary of eastern Alameda County, 1) does not violate the single-subject rule, 2) does not violate state housing laws, 3) does not constitute an as-applied taking that is ripe for adjudication, and 4) is not inconsistent with the County's general plan.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/29/2003
• Published 07/29/2003

Judges

• JONES, P.J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
•  Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May, Kathy M. Banke, Jayne E. Fleming, Oakland;  Morrison & Foerster and Michael Zischke, San Francisco, for Plaintiffs and Appellants Shea Homes Limited Partnership, Hong Yao Lin and Jennifer Lin., Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton and David P. Lanferman, Santa Barbara, for Plaintiff and Appellant Trafalgar, Inc.


• For Appellees:
  
• Richard E. Winnie, County Counsel, Lorenzo E. Chambliss, Senior Deputy County Counsel and Brian Washington, Assistant County Counsel;  M. Thomas Jacobson for Defendants and Respondents County of Alameda and Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda., Manuela Albuquerque, City Attorney (Berkeley), and Zach Cowan, Assistant City Attorney for Cities of Berkeley, Oakland, Pleasanton, Livermore, Albany and Emeryville as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent County of Alameda., Trent W. Orr;  Earthjustice and Deborah S. Reames, San Francisco, for Interveners and Respondents The Sierra Club, Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee, Golden Gate Audubon Society and Greenbelt Alliance.