Abbott & Kindermann Land Use Law Blog : California Land Use, Environmental & Real Estate Lawyer & Attorney : Abbott & Kindermann Law Firm : Sacramento, CA

By William W. Abbott 

The California Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, reversed the First Appellate District and upheld a trial court’s decision rejecting a challenge to overturn a Proposition 218 election. In Ford Greene v. Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (June 7, 2010) 49 Cal.4th 277, the basis of the challenge was whether or not the district conducting the election had maintained the requisite level of voting secrecy.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By William W. Abbott

In 1986, the Legislature enacted the Mitigation Fee Act (“MFA”) (Government Code section 66000 et seq.) Supported by the building industry, this legislation was thought to operate as a limitation on the enactment of impact fees by local government, a practice which was gaining in momentum following the voter enacted Proposition 13 and the resulting chaos in local government funding. By providing express statutory recognition for impact fees, the Mitigation Fee Act, in this author’s opinion, inadvertently led to the significant expansion in the world of impact fees rather then operating as a brake. To the extent that a city or county was sitting on the fence as to whether or not it could adopt impact fees, that question was now clearly answered by the MFA. The result has been the widespread adoption of fees, with the creative juices of consultants testing the limits of what can be funded through fees (e.g. bullet proof vests for public safety staff.)

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Cori Badgley

Los Angeles Unified School District v. County of Los Angeles (2010) __ Cal.App.4th __ involved a tug-of-war between a county and a school district over a share of the property tax increment distributed by redevelopment agencies. In the wake of Proposition 13, property tax revenues are limited and their allocation is coveted by local government, special districts and school districts. Under redevelopment law, redevelopment agencies must give a portion of the incremental increase in property tax revenues to local entities, including schools, based on the percentage of property tax revenue received by the entity in that fiscal year. In this case, the Los Angeles Unified School District argued that it was entitled to a larger share of the property tax increment than it had been allocated because defendants, which included multiple redevelopment agencies, the County of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles (collectively “county”), failed to take certain property taxes received by the school district into account. The trial court disagreed with the school district, and the appellate court reversed.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Cori Badgley

Under Proposition 218 (Cal. Const. art. XIII D), special assessments shall not “exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on a parcel.” The courts have divided this into two general inquiries: 1) is a special benefit conferred by the improvement to be built through the assessment?; and 2) is the assessment proportional? In Town of Tiburon v. Bonander (2009)180 Cal.App.4th 1057, the court answered yes to the first question, but found that the division of costs was not proportional under Proposition 218.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update

Reserve your seat for one of three seminars taking place in 2010!

In January and February 2010 Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will present its annual complimentary educational program for clients and colleagues interested in current land use, environmental, and real estate issues affecting commercial and residential development, real estate acquisition, easements, leasing and property acquisition, and mining.  In addition, the following hot topics for 2010 will be discussed:

• Global Warming: CEQA Guidelines, Mandatory Reporting
• Water Supply Legislation
• CEQA Litigation: Alternative Analysis & Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
• Subdivision Map Extension
• Interpreting Development Agreements
• Endangered Species Act

Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will be presenting its annual program at three California locations: Sacramento, Modesto and Redding. Details for the seminars are below. We hope you can join us and look forward to seeing you there.

Modesto Conference

• Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010
• Location: Double Tree Hotel Modesto, 1150 Ninth Street
• Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
• Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Redding Conference 

• Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010
• Location: Hilton Garden Inn Redding , 5050 Bechelli Lane
• Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
• Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Sacramento Conference

• Date: Friday, February 12, 2010
• Location: Sacramento Hilton Arden West, 2200 Harvard Street
• Registration: 8:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. with continental breakfast
• Program: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon

There is no charge for the programs and MCLE and AICP CM credits are available.

An RSVP will be required as space is limited. To reserve a spot, call our office at (916) 456-9595. When calling, please specify which conference you will be attending.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Cori Badgley

There are many different types of fees, taxes and assessments that a local agency may impose. For each type, there are specific procedures and requirements, and if the agency does not use the correct procedure and meet the correct requirements, a court may invalidate the fee. In California Building Industry Association v. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 120, the agency got it right, and the court held that the agency’s indirect source review fees were valid regulatory fees.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

This article highlights the 2009 CEQA court decisions along with the proposed changes to the CEQA guidelines. Many of the highlights are linked to more detailed analyses prepared by the attorneys at Abbott & Kindermann, LLP.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By William W. Abbott

Well, Mark Twain got that right. Beginning with the voter approval in 1978 of Proposition 13, California voters and public agencies have been at odds with each other over local government revenue strategies.  The dilemma for local government being of course, that residents demand high level of services but expect someone else to pay for it. Walking the fine line between service delivery and voter enacted limitations on revenue streams, local agencies continuously explore and implement new strategies to capture new revenue streams, and over time, the trend has been to link charges to services provided. In the most recent levy case, the City of San Diego attempted to forge new territory by charging a processing fee for the purpose of offsetting costs associated with sending tax bills. In other words, a processing fee imposed on top of, and for the purpose of, collecting a general tax collected from property owners.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Cori Badgley

In 2008, the California Supreme Court held that the proper standard of review in deciding whether assessments imposed by local agencies violate Article XIII D of the California Constitution is de novo. (Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (2008) 44 Cal.4th 431 (“SVTA”); see California Supreme Court Rules Open Space Assessment is Invalid Special Tax Under Proposition 218.)  The Court also held that the local agency has the burden of proof.  (Id.)  In light of the holding in SVTA, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District reevaluated its decision to uphold the creation of a special assessment district by the City of Pomona.  Although the court applied the de novo standard of review instead of substantial evidence, the court still found that the assessments imposed by the City of Pomona through the creation of the Downtown Pomona Property and Business Improvement District (“PBID”) did not violate Article XIII D of the California Constitution.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Cori Badgley

In interpreting the provision of a development agreement imposing an in-lieu affordable housing fee, the court in Building Industry Association of Central California v. City of Patterson (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 886 enunciated two important rulings: 1) development agreements are interpreted under contract law, and 2) an in-lieu affordable housing fee is not reasonably justified if the fee is simply based on the amount of housing allocated to the jurisdiction under the regional housing need assessment.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Katherine J. Hart

In California Native Plant Society v. County of El Dorado (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1026, the California Native Plant Society (“Society”) filed a CEQA lawsuit against El Dorado County (“County”) after the County approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and Congregate Care Project (“Project”).  The Project consists of two care units, cottages, and a clubhouse on 20 acres, and was part of a larger development area including a local medical center, a senior assisted living facility, medical office buildings and a local retail shopping center.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Cori Badgley

In Los Altos Golf and Country Club v. County of Santa Clara (June 30, 2008) 2008 Cal.App.Lexis 1149, plaintiffs brought a class action demanding a refund from the City of Los Altos of sewer service charges paid by plaintiffs on the grounds that the fees violated Article XIII D of the California Constitution and the Health and Safety Code. Instead of allowing plaintiffs to make any substantive arguments, the City and the County ("Respondents") claimed that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs had failed to pay the fees under protest, as required by the Health and Safety Code. The Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District agreed with the Respondents and dismissed the case. Sewer service charges must first be paid under protest in order to later request a refund.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Cori Badgley

Generally, when a plaintiff challenges the action of a government agency, the plaintiff has the burden to overcome the presumption that the government agency acted lawfully. In regards to special assessments falling within the protections of Proposition 218, the burden shifts. When a plaintiff challenges a special assessment, the government agency has the burden to prove that it acted lawfully, and the court reviews the agency’s decision de novo.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The authors of the Solano Press publication Exactions and Impact Fees in California are currently revising the 2001 version of the book and welcome suggestions for material to include in this updated edition.  Suggestions may be emailed to wabbott@aklandlaw.com.

Additionally, the 2007 supplement for the book is available for free here.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The authors of the Solano Press publication Exactions and Impact Fees in California have prepared a 2007 supplement to the book.  That supplement can be downloaded here. 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By William W. Abbott

One person’s misery can be someone else’s gain. This can also hold true when dealing with inter-jurisdictional disputes over impact fees. The recent case of Woodward Park Homeowners Association, Inc. v. City of Fresno (April 13, 2007) 2007 Cal.App.LEXIS 544 highlights a number of important CEQA practice issues. While these are not necessarily new concerns, the case daylights a key issue of first impression--namely, whose responsibility is it to calculate the nexus for impact fees to be set for impacts to state highway facilities? Is CalTrans responsible, or is it the responsibility of the city or county approving a development project which impacts state facilities? According to the Fifth Appellate District, the answer to the question is the lead agency.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By William W. Abbott

Citing "Exactions and Impact Fees in California" [1], the Third Appellate District ruled that the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, §§ 66410 et seq.) 90-day statute of limitations trumped the longer Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, §§ 66000 et seq.) timeline when reviewing a legal challenge to a subdivision map denial by the City of Chico. The case is Thomas Fogarty v. City of Chico (March 12, 2007) 2007 Cal.App.Lexis 339. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By William W. Abbott & Janell M. Bogue

Closely following on the heels of County of San Diego, the California Supreme Court decided City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341, which also involved issues of the appropriateness of mitigation expenditures, this time by the California State University system. Here, the state university (CSU) assumed the legal position that it was not authorized to mitigate for offsite impacts, and on that basis, the Trustees rejected the feasibility of mitigation measures sought by a local city (Marina) and a base reuse authority (Fort Ord Reuse Authority or "FORA").

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

by William W. Abbott and Janell M. Bogue

Properly administered impact fee programs can operate to streamline CEQA review of later development projects. At the same time, impact fee programs which are not implemented in accordance with the original expectations or which are founded upon unrealistic assumptions may offer the lead agency and affected applicant little or no real relief. Significant cases decided over the last five years illustrate how this can play out.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

by Robert T. Yamachika

Richmond v. Shasta Community Services District (2004) 32 Cal.4th 409

The issue in this case was whether a water district's increase of its two component water connection fees violated Proposition 218's voter approval requirement. Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, was approved by California voters in 1996 and added articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution. The Shasta Community Services District ("SCSD") operates a water system for residential and commercial users and a volunteer fire department that provides fire suppression and emergency services.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

by William W. Abbott and Robert T. Yamachika

This article summarizes recent case law addressing dedications and development fees.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

by Diane G. Kindermann and Robert T. Yamachika

In a recent Proposition 218 case, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Salinas (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1351, the Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District held that a "storm water drainage fee" was illegally imposed by the City of Salinas. The plaintiff, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ("HJTA") contended that the storm drainage fee imposed by the City of Salinas was a "property-related" fee requiring voter approval. HJTA's arguments were based on Proposition 218, the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," which was passed by the California voters in 1996. Proposition 218 added article XIII D, section 6(c) to the California Constitution, requiring notice for a public hearing and a vote for a proposed property-related fee or charge. If a majority of the affected property owners or two-thirds of the electorate in the affected area do not approve the fee, it may not be imposed.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link