By Cori Badgley
In Health First v. March Joint Powers Authority (2009) (Case No. E045541), the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District addressed the issue of whether the approval of a Design Plan Application was discretionary, thus requiring review pursuant to CEQA. The court held that approval of the Design Plan Application was ministerial, not discretionary, and therefore, CEQA did not apply.
Continue Reading...By Leslie Z Walker
In Ste. Marie v. Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District (2009) 46 Cal.4th 282, the Supreme Court resolved an apparent conflict between Public Resources Code sections 5540 and 5565 in favor of a park district’s ability to hold real property without dedicating it to park or open space purposes.
Continue Reading...By Cori Badgley
In Hofman Ranch v. Yuba County Local Agency Formation Commission, 172 Cal.App.4th 805 (2009), the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District held that an independent contractor hired by the Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCo”) acting as LAFCo’s executive officer, was, for the purpose of the Brown Act, an employee of LAFCo. Because the independent contractor was an employee, LAFCo lawfully held a closed session to discuss the contractor’s employment terms pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act.
Continue Reading...The Governors Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit announced that they will not be accepting CEQA documents for review or processing on the first and third Fridays of each month, now through June 30, 2010. This notice is in response to the state agency furlough ordered by the Governor which has required the State Clearinghouse to close their doors two days per month for the next year and a half.
As a result, CEQA review periods will be delayed, however the review periods that would typically end on the first and third Fridays will be extended to the following Monday. For more information, visit the State Clearinghouse website.
By Glen Hansen
In Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 253, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, held that the extension of a temporary growth control ordinance restarts the running of the 90-day statute of limitations found in Government Code section 65009 to challenge the ordinance.
Continue Reading...By Nathan Jones and Leslie Z. Walker
In May of 2006, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance “Adopting the redevelopment plan for the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project” (“Ordinance”). The ordinance increased the size of redevelopment activity in Bayview-Hunter’s Point from 147 acres to 1,500 acres. Many in the community viewed the redevelopment project as an attempt to gentrify the area aimed at dispossessing working-class residents in the area. The case of Defend Bayview Hunters Point Committee v. City and County of San Francisco (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 846, illustrates a pitfall for organizers who fail to attach reference materials of substance to a petition challenging a local redevelopment ordinance.
Continue Reading...By Leslie Z. Walker and Cori M. Badgley
California’s land use planning structure has long been governed by a philosophy of home rule. Periodically, the legislature has identified specific typical areas for state intrusion: housing policy and airport land use planning are two examples. Among other provisions, SB 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes 2008) reflects a new area of state intervention, brought on by the rising concern over global warming. This time, it is through the regional transportation planning process, with the apparent thinking that once you control the purse strings, local governments will fall into line. SB 375’s major elements are:
Continue Reading...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...By Glen Hansen
The recent decision by the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District in Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1561, vividly illustrates the conflict that can arise between the desire by local voters to limit housing growth, the local jurisdiction’s obligations under state law to allow construction of low and moderate income housing, and the local officials’ reluctance to thwart the voters’ desire in order to meet those state obligations. That conflict invariably leads to litigation, even years after a no-growth initiative is passed by the voters.
Continue Reading...By Glen Hansen
Applicants don’t like being denied a local land use permit. It is equally frustrating for project opponents who fail to stop an approval by a local governmental board to understand why the decision makers didn’t endorse their arguments. Many believe that the failure to prevail before an agency is not due to the merits of the cause, but is the result of some unstated, nefarious plot or bias in the collective heads of the agency board that rejected the position. However, the Court of Appeal recently reminded us that digging into the thought process of administrative officials is generally out of bounds.
Continue Reading...By Kate J. Hart
On May 10, 2007, the California Second District Court of Appeal issued a potentially significant decision concerning unfunded state mandates dictated by a Regional Board permit issued in 2001. The case is County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (May 10, 2007) 2007 Cal.App.Lexis 711. This case goes to the heart of state enforced regulatory authority because it calls into question whether the Regional Boards can issue permits (or enforcement orders) that require local governments, special districts, cities and counties to comply with a “new program or [provide] higher level of service of any existing program” without providing reimbursement for additional program costs.
Continue Reading...Mahon v. County of San Mateo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 812
The "deemed approved" remedy for untimely processing must give heads up to neighbors -- what may be "deemed" is not what it seemed.
By Joel Ellinwood, AICP
Recognizing that the often seemingly interminable delay by local agencies in development permit processing drives up costs of providing housing and other desirable projects, the development industry succeeded in persuading the legislature to impose what at first glance appear to be strict timelines for the agency to approve or disapprove projects. The timelines are given teeth by provisions which may result in projects being "deemed approved" if the agency fails to act within the time provided. However, as the recent case of Mahon v. County of San Mateo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 812 (modified June 19, 2006) illustrates, the teeth don't seem to have much bite. This article will identify strategies for making the best use of what little bite is left to help manage the pace of development processing.
Continue Reading...by William W. Abbott
How far can a city council go in closed session in settling litigation involving a land use dispute? We have a better idea after reading Trancas Property Owners Association v. City of Malibu (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1245 (rehearing granted October 26, 2005). In the eyes of the Second District Court of Appeal, the city council cannot (1) contract away the police power (the authority to apply later enacted zoning), and (2) make land use decisions which would otherwise be subject to a public hearing process.
Continue Reading...by William W. Abbott
Can a public official who violates Government Code section 1090 sue the agency and the agency's legal counsel (on whose advice the official arguably relied) for damages? As decided in the recent case of Chapman v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 261, the answer is no. Section 1090 operates as a specific prohibition against public officials from having a financial interest in contracts involving the public entities they serve. This obligation is separate from the more stringent requirement of the disclose and refain rules of the Political Reform Act. (Gov. Code, § 81000 et seq.)
Continue Reading...by Joel Ellinwood, AICP
Peter Detwiler, chief consultant for the California State Senate's Committee on Local Government and long-time legislative staffer on land use planning issues has a new theme. In talks at professional planning seminars around the state, he is warning of a potential new weapon in the litigation arsenal of those opposing development in areas being annexed to cities or special districts. Whether Detwiler is right, or merely singing another version of "the sky is falling," his pitch is worth paying attention to. He recently presented it at the annual Land Use Conference sponsored by UCLA and at the Sacramento Chapter of the American Planning Association luncheon speaker series. It goes like this.
Continue Reading...by William W. Abbott and Heather Gerken
Land use applicants frequently fail to appreciate the deference that a reviewing court must give a city council or board of supervisors. Disgruntled with an adverse decision, an adversely affected applicant often believes that they are entitled to re-argue the merits of their position. As the following cases illustrate, judicial review of controversial land use regulations does not start with a blank canvas.
Enter keywords:
