SUMMARY GOLDEN: KEY: WAS IT AUTHORIZED? COURT’S REASONING TYING ZONING WITH SUBDIVISION LAW URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES THE THREE BOUNDARIES

SUMMARY (CONT.) THE ROLE OF INCORPORATION HOLDING: NO PER SE VIOLATION BUT: GOALS CONSIDERED IN DECISION HOUSING MOUNT LAUREL: THE “FAIR SHARE” PRINCIPLE

MOUNT LAUREL FOCUS: RATIONALE AND REMEDY THE PLAINTIFFS: WHO ARE THEY? COURT’S APPROACH TO PLAINTIFFS THE CITY’S LAND USE PATTERN ATTRACT A “SELECTIVE TYPE OF GROWTH” REASON: “FISCAL ZONING” COMPARE: INDUSTRIAL ZONING AGAINST ACTUAL USE

MOUNT LAUREL (Cont.) THE “FAIR SHARE” PRINCIPLE: PRESENT AND PROSPECTIVE REGIONAL NEED UNLESS MUNICIPALITY SUSTAINS BURDEN LINK TO “GENERAL WELFARE” THE PRINCIPLE APPLIED PRESUMPTIVELY CONTRARY TO GENERAL WELFARE CITY CANNOT JUSTIFY

MOUNT LAUREL (Last) REMEDY: WHAT MUST CITY DO? HOW DEFINE THE “REGION”? NULLIFY ENTIRE ZONING ORDINANCE? REJECTS PREPARATION OF A “PLAN” IS THIS THE RIGHT REMEDY? USEFULNESS OF HOUSING LITIGATION MOUNT LAUREL II: HAS CITY IN FACT PROVIDED HOUSING?

STATUTORY HOUSING MANDATES CITY OF OCEANSIDE: THE “RESIDENTIAL CONTROL SYSTEM” METHOD OF ALLOCATION THE CHALLENGE: CONSISTENCY 1. PUB. FACILITIES & MGMT ELEMENT 2. HOUSING ELEMENT 3. STATE LAW

EQUAL PROTECTION 1. CLEBURNE LEVEL OF SCRUTINY APPLYING THE RATIONAL BASIS TEST 2. OLECH THE “33 FOOT EASEMENT” HOLDING BREYER CONCURRENCE: ACCURATE?

THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROCESS CEQA (AND NEPA): THE THEORY EIR ON “PROJECT” WHICH “MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT” CONTENTS OF EIR APPROVAL OF PROJECT AFTER EIR IS PREPARED HOW CEQA AFFECTS THE LAND USE PROCESS