For current planning issues, join the conversation among planners, engineers, attorneys and developers on LinkedIn at the Northern California Planning and Land Development Group. See you there!
By Cori M. Badgley
In order to avoid having your takings claim dismissed, your timing has to be just right. Unfortunately for Colony Cove Properties, LLC (“Colony Cove”), the timing was off, and its takings claim was dismissed by the court for being both too late (facial challenge) and too early (as-applied challenge).
By Glen C. Hansen
In Disney v. City of Concord (2011) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 2011 Cal.App. LEXIS 520, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held that a city ordinance that regulated the storage of recreational vehicles on residential property for aesthetic reasons was within the city’s constitutional police powers.
By William W. Abbott
The Fifth Appellate District showed pragmatism and practicality the exit door in a recent CEQA decision involving an approval by the Board of Trustees of California State University Fresno. In Landvalue 77, LLC v. Board of Trustees of California State University 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 1312, the disputed project involved land owned by the University. The University in turn leased the property to an associated University foundation, who then ground leased the property to a developer for a mixed use project. In the ensuing legal challenge to the project approval by entities owning and managing a nearby commercial center, the trial court and appellate court addressed both conflict of interest issues (the effect of a trustee to hold an economic interest in a cinema sublease) as well as CEQA compliance. Only a portion of the appellate decision is published, that dealing with the appropriate actions to be taken by the trial court once it finds a violation of CEQA.
By Glen C. Hansen
In Main Street Plaza v. Cartwright & Main, LLC (2011) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 2011 Cal.App. LEXIS 499, the Fourth Appellate District held that a defendant property owner was not entitled to a summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claim of a prescriptive easement over an alleyway on defendant’s property, where the plaintiffs did not pay taxes on a separately assessed railway easement that ran along the same land as the alleyway, and where the railway easement and the prescriptive easement were not coextensive in use.