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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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