The Fourth Appellate District affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment. The court held that a county erred in concluding that amendment of the definition of “net acreage” in its general plan would not have a negative impact on local flora and fauna.
Inyo County’s 2001 County General Plan defined “net acreage” as “the remainder of land left after land devoted to streets, roads, and utilities are deducted from the parcel.” Concerns were raised that this definition of net acreage was confusing and could result in some parcels being rendered too small for development because the phrase “‘devoted to’” was unclear. Under the existing definition, property devoted to a utility easement would be deducted from the net acreage calculation even though it was still useable.
