Home > Local Government >
Posted on December 6, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Katherine J. Hart
On October 8, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill No. 436 (SB 436), authored by Senator Kehoe, into law. SB 436 substantially strengthens the mitigation aspect of the Planning and Zoning Law. It amends Government Code Section 65965 (Definitions), and adds three new Government Code Sections: 65966 and 65967, 65968.
Continue Reading...
Posted on November 29, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By William W. Abbott
This case reminds me of that dreaded moment when a judge, work supervisor or parent turns to you and asks, “what part of “NO” don’t you understand; the “N” or the “O”? And as simple as the question is, the answer, in a land use context, is more complicated then would first appear. For purposes of housing projects, the riddle is Government Code section 65589.5(j) which, among other provisions, requires a city or county to adopt findings justifying the denial or density reduction in circumstances in which the project complies with “applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards.” This code section was added in an effort to tighten down the discretion exercised by local officials when acting on a housing project application. It is codified as part of the Housing Accountability Act. A companion code section places the burden of proof on the city or county. (Government Code section 65589.6.)
Continue Reading...
Posted on November 15, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Cori M. Badgley
There have been several attempts by medical marijuana dispensary proponents to get the courts to recognize a right to establish a dispensary, regardless of what the local zoning code allows. Thus far, these attempts have failed, and the most recent attempt in Traudt v. City of Dana Point (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 886, is no different. This time the court did not even make it to the merits, but struck the case down at the demurrer stage for lack of standing.
Continue Reading...
Posted on November 9, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By William W. Abbott
The dividing line separating which privately undertaken improvements are subject to prevailing wage requirements from those which do not, has become less clear over time. The result is that some contractors, after bidding a project as a purely private undertaking, learn that they incorrectly bid their labor costs. It is common practice in construction agreements that this financial risk is borne by the contractor. Earlier this year, this blog reported the Azusa Land Partners decision. The most recent chapter in the story of prevailing wage comes from a challenged ground lease between the San Diego Unified Port District and a hotel developer.
Continue Reading...
Posted on November 8, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Cori M. Badgley
In Ardon v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 52 Cal.4th 241, the California Supreme Court held that class actions for tax refunds against a local governmental entity are permissible under section 910 of the Government Code (i.e., Government Claims Act) in the absence of a specific statutory tax refund procedure.
Continue Reading...
Posted on November 1, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Katherine J. Hart
In West Chandler Boulevard Neighborhood Association v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1506, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, considered the validity of the City of Los Angeles’ (“City”) grant of a conditional use permit, height variance and parking variance to a group (“Chabad”) operating a synagogue in a residential neighborhood within the City.
Continue Reading...
Posted on October 10, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By William W. Abbott
Recent polls suggest that Proposition XIII remains as popular today as when it was enacted. Yet, at the same time, residents demand a high level of services which exceed the ability of local officials to fund absent innovation in developing new funding strategies. This innovation in turn has generated a series of voter enacted limitations designed to further restrict new revenue measures, absent voter approval. Part of this voter legacy is Proposition 218, enacted in 1996 (California Constitution Art XIIID).
Continue Reading...
Posted on October 7, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Cori M. Badgley
In early 2011, the State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) released three draft statewide NPDES permits for public review and comment. To say that these permits were not well-received by the regulated community (i.e., small municipalities, CalTrans and industrial business owners) is an understatement. In a rare intervention by members of the state legislature into the realm of state agencies, the Senate Select Committee on California Job Creation and Retention held an informational hearing on the draft permits on October 6, 2011. The message from the hearing came across loud and clear: time for a do-over.
Continue Reading...
Posted on October 4, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By William W. Abbott
In CEQA and land use litigation, project opponents who prevail in court will seek attorneys’ fees as authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. This code section grants a trial court the discretion to award fees in appropriate situations. In circumstances in which the opponents must first exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit, can the successful party also recover fees for the administrative time? A recent appellate decision answers the question with a "yes".
Continue Reading...
Posted on September 28, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Glen C. Hansen
In Tafti v. County of Tulare (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 891, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District held that a local enforcement agency violated the due process rights of a property owner when it failed to provide adequate notice of the nature of an administrative appeal hearing where an administrative law judge recalculated a civil penalty in an amount that was over eight times the penalty amount stated in the original enforcement order that the owner appealed from.
Continue Reading...
Posted on September 22, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Leslie Z. Walker
San Diego Association of Governments has prepared the first draft Regional Transportation Plan (“RTP”) to include a Sustainable Communities Strategy (“SCS”), as required by Senate Bill 375. As drafted, the SCS will achieve the California Air Resources Board’s (“CARB”) 2020 and 2035 greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. CARB staff reviewed the draft RTP/SCS and the quantification of the greenhouse gas reductions expected from implementation of the plan in an Informational Report. The report found that the RTP/SCS would meet the 2020 target of a 7 percent per capita reduction and would just meet the 2035 target of a 13 percent per capita reduction.
Continue Reading...
Posted on August 31, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By William W. Abbott
As with most things in life, one person’s gain is another person’s loss, and public-private partnerships are not exempt from these types of tradeoffs. To the state engineers and their representative union, the contracting out to private engineering firms of engineering services traditionally performed by Caltrans engineering staff represents one of those zero-sum games. This becomes the backdrop to a challenge to the Phase II improvement work on Doyle Drive, the highway approach to the southern terminus of the Golden Gate Bridge, an existing roadway project worthy of improvement.
Continue Reading...
Posted on August 22, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Katherine J. Hart
In Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill (August 5, 2011, H035519) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, petitioner and plaintiff (“Arcadia”) filed a petition for writ of mandate and a complaint for damages against the City of Morgan Hill (“City”) over an initiative measure placed on the ballot by the City and approved by the voters in 2004. Arcadia argued the City illegally spot-zoned its 69-acre property, inversely condemned the property, and sought damages for violating its civil and equal protection rights. Both the trial court and the appellate court rejected Arcadia’s claims.
Continue Reading...
Posted on August 2, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
The following summary of 2011 legislation has been released by Peter M. Detwiler, Consultant, Senate Governance & Finance Committee, State Capitol, Sacramento, California.
Earlier this year, the Senate created the Committee on Governance & Finance to replace the former Senate Revenue & Taxation Committee and the former Senate Local Government Committee. More information about this new Committee and its policy jurisdiction appears at http://senweb03.senate.ca.gov/committee/standing/GOVERNANCE/.
Now that the Legislature has started its summer recess, we have a chance to reflect on the bills that the Senate Governance & Finance Committee reviewed during the first half of 2011. These brief summaries offer you a selection of the more interesting and important bills.
Posted on July 27, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By William W. Abbott
A new decision from the Third Appellate District illustrates that the drafters and voters in favor of Proposition 218 achieved what they were after: further restrictions on the ability of public agencies to raise new revenue irrespective of the salutary purposes or modesty of the imposition. The case involves a fire protection assessment approved by 61.8% of the vote cast in a 218 election proceeding.Concerned Citizens for Responsible Government v. West Point Fire Protection District (2011) 196 Cal.App. 4th 1427.
Continue Reading...
Posted on July 7, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
Please join William W. Abbott and Steven Rudolph on August 18, 2011 from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM for an in depth look at the art of crafting development agreements in their UC Davis Extension course, Vested Rights, Vesting Maps and Development Agreements.
Development agreements are an effective avenue for a community and a developer to work together to process projects. Both sides need to carefully consider the terms of these contracts and look at questions of content and performance before completing such agreements. Review the legislative and judicial aspects of development agreements. Examine the legal basis for development agreements and the overlap between agreements and vesting subdivision maps.
Gain an understanding of the negotiating process, identify and discuss the range of options available when negotiating a development agreement, and review the "theoretically" possible agreement. Review the key points to an agreement and learn ways to assist in understanding the needs of the "other side." Learn how to strategically pick the players to conduct the negotiation. An in-depth discussion will look at techniques and concepts that are likely to work, those that do not, and why most attempts at development agreements are doomed to failure.
Topics include:
- Common Law Vested Rights
- Legal Review
- Development Agreements vs. Vested Maps
- The Development Agreement Statute
- Key Terms and Alternative Approaches
- Considerations in Negotiating the Agreement
- Contents of an Agreement
- Testing the Waters
- Paper Control—Who Drafts the Document?
- Enforceability
- How to Implement Agreements
- What Happens After the Life of an Agreement?
Register at:
http://extension.ucdavis.edu/unit/land_use_and_natural_resources/course/description/?type=A&unit=LUNR&SectionID=157252&course_title=Vested%20Rights,%20Vesting%20Maps%20and%20Development%20Agreements&prgList=LUP&AreaName=Land+Use
Posted on June 28, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Leslie Z. Walker, William W. Abbott, Cori M. Badgley and Katherine J. Hart
In the first six months of 2011, the appellate courts have issued eight opinions and the results are a mixed bag. On the one hand, the Sixth Appellate District gave cities and project proponents a strategy to deal with Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116 (Cedar Fair, L.P. v. City of Santa Clara (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1150); the First Appellate District gave more clarity on deferred mitigation in Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884; and the Fourth District held that petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies when they did not fairly present evidence to the City (Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 184 Cal.App.4th 1032). On the other hand however, the Fifth Appellate District held that project components not properly documented for CEQA purposes cannot be severed from the balance of the approval and a project found to partially violate CEQA, must be set aside in its entirety (Landvalue 77, LLC v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 675.)
Continue Reading...
Posted on June 16, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By William W. Abbott
California land use law, as we know it today, has evolved over a 40 year time period. One notable feature of this body of law is, when compared to the overall body of civil law, the relatively short filing period for bringing legal challenges. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") potentially has the shortest time period of 30 days, depending upon the fact pattern. For legal challenges alleging non compliance with provisions of the state Planning, Zoning and Development law, the relevant statutes are slightly longer at 90 days, however the Legislature has created an even longer filing period based upon challenges under the affordable housing laws. A recent decision of the Fourth Appellate District illustrates the overlapping and potentially conflicting application of the various statutes. Haro v. City of Solano Beach (2011) ____ Cal.App.4th ____.
Continue Reading...
Posted on May 6, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
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.
Continue Reading...
Posted on April 19, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Katherine J. Hart
In Coronado Cays Homeowners Association v. City of Coronado (2011) ___ Cal. App.4th ___, the City of Coronado (“City”) appealed a trial court’s grant of declaratory relief to the Coronado Cays Homeowners Association (“Association”) regarding the question of whether the City or the Association was required to maintain a berm[1] in the Coronado Cays subdivision canal pursuant to the terms of a special use permit granted in 1968 and a parcel map. In upholding the trial court’s determination, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held that the subdivision map was not ambiguous as to the term “ancillary structures” and that the berm in question did not constitute an “ancillary structure.” Thus, the City, not the Association, was required to maintain the berm.
Continue Reading...
Posted on April 18, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Cori Badgley
After the Medical Marijuana Program Act was adopted by the legislature in 2003, medical marijuana dispensaries began cropping up throughout counties and cities that had no existing zoning or permit scheme in place for such establishments. In reaction to these dispensaries and the Act, many counties and cities began the process of establishing medical marijuana dispensary ordinances. One such county is the County of Los Angeles. Based on its ordinance, the County of Los Angeles brought a nuisance action in superior court against a dispensary, the Alternative Medicinal Collective of Covina, and the dispensaries owner/operator, Martin Hill. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction against the dispensary, and the dispensary appealed in County of Los Angeles v. Hill (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 861.
Continue Reading...
Posted on April 15, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Cori Badgley
After a challenge based on the density bonus law and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a mixed-use affordable housing or senior affordable housing project (depending on what the developer chooses) in the City of Berkeley can move forward. In Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (March 30, 2011, Case No. A128121), the court held that the city properly applied density bonuses to the project and the categorical infill exemption under CEQA.
Continue Reading...
Posted on April 15, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Leslie Z. Walker
The First Amendment Free Speech clause states, “Congress . . . shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” The political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military and scandals involving the Catholic clergy, are matters of public import meriting the protection of the Free Speech Clause. In Snyder v. Phelps (2011) 562 U.S. ____ 131 S. Ct. 1207, the Supreme Court found that members of Westboro Baptist Church picketing the funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq were entitled to special protection under the First Amendment because the picketing was done at a public place on a matter of public concern.
Continue Reading...
Posted on April 1, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By William W. Abbott
City officials in Playa Del Toro, an upscale enclave in Southern California, recently adopted an ordinance regulating dog use of the public beach. Unlike other cities, it wasn't a case of banning dogs from the beach, but restricting access to the right kind of dogs: purebreds. The San Diego Union quoted Mayor S. Black as saying: "our residents invest a lot in their dogs. The community wants the off-leash experience for their dogs to be similar to what the dog's owners enjoy as they interact in our award winning downtown." Warily observing a mixed breed border collie running out of control on the beach, the mayor went on to say; "we won't have to deal with that sort of behavior any longer". The mayor emphasized that city beach staff had received special training in recognizing purebreds, and at first, would only be handing out citations. If this doesn't work, Mayor Black added: "one resident suggested that the city use 'boots' on repeat offenders like we do on the vehicle wheels of repeat parking violators. We checked; the smaller sizes are not available on the market yet."
Continue Reading...
Posted on March 7, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By William W. Abbott
The "Faith" Fellowship Foursquare Church (“Church”) is a church active in the City of San Leandro, but as its membership grew with the passage of time, the Church outgrew its existing facilities. Starting in 2006, the Church began searching for a new location and eventually settled on property on Catalina Street, located in an industrial park. The park was located in an area designated by the City’s general plan for industrial technological activity. In March 2006, the Church entered into a purchase agreement for the Catalina property.
Continue Reading...
Posted on March 1, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Leslie Z. Walker
In Alameda Books et al. v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2011, No. 09-55367) ____ F.3d____ [2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1769], the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether plaintiffs had presented actual and convincing evidence to cast doubt on the City of Los Angeles’ rational in enacting an ordinance requiring the dispersal of adult entertainment businesses. The United States District Court for the Central District granted summary judgment against the City of Los Angeles finding plaintiffs’ evidence was actual and convincing enough to cast doubt on the city’s purpose in enacting the ordinance on appeal. The Ninth Circuit found that the declarations were facially biased and insufficient to call into question the municipality’s justification of the ordinance.
Continue Reading...
Posted on February 14, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By William W. Abbott
The right of California voters to control their own legislative fate derives from the national political reform movements at the beginning of the 20th Century, and in fact, Hiram Johnson was elected governor in 1910 in part due to his support for initiatives and political reform. In the following 100 years, this populist element of democracy has become part of local land use planning and development legal framework as local voters have used California’s constitutional initiative and referendum powers to shape growth. A recent case from the City of Santa Barbara illustrates a variation on the intersection of planning and voter control. Citizens Planning Association v. City of Santa Barbara (2011) ____ Cal.App.4th ____.
Continue Reading...
Posted on February 2, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Cori Badgley
Regardless of the substantive merits of a case, the procedural requirements of the statute of limitations first must be met. In County of Sonoma v. Superior Court (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1312, the owners of a medical marijuana dispensary (“plaintiff”) attempted to cast their lawsuit as an as-applied challenge to the county’s local ordinance regulating dispensaries. However, the appellate court held that the challenge was actually a facial challenge, and plaintiff failed to bring the challenge within 90 days of the effective date of the ordinance. Therefore, plaintiff was barred from bringing its lawsuit.
Continue Reading...
Posted on January 26, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Cori Badgley
As we previously learned in Building Industry Association of Central California v. City of Patterson (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 886, the interpretation of development agreements is governed by contract law and not statutory interpretation principles. In the more recent case of Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition, LLC v. Town of Mammoth Lakes (Dec. 30, 2010, No. C059239) __ Cal.App.4th __, we learned that the breach of a development agreement by a municipality can have a hefty price tag, and under contract law, there are no immunities protecting the municipality from having to pay up.
Continue Reading...
Posted on January 20, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Kathrine J. Hart
In Azusa Land Partners v. Department of Industrial Relations, (Dec. 21, 2010, No. B218275) ____ Cal.App.4th ____, the Second Appellate District Court of Appeals upheld determinations by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) and trial court that (1) a master planned community project is a “public work” subject to prevailing wage laws applicable to public improvement work performed by private contractors where such work was a condition of project approval, (2) Mello-Roos proceeds are “public funds,” and (3) once a project is deemed a “public work” under Prevailing Wage Law, the entire project is subject to the law – including those improvements which are privately financed. This case is significant because it turns the historical interpretation of “public work” under the Prevailing Wage Law on its head; typically the analysis to ascertain whether each public improvement is a public work is based on whether any portion of the required public improvement work received a direct allocation of public funds. If this decision stands, developers will be subject to prevailing wages on all projects which include public improvements financed only partially by public funds.
Continue Reading...
Posted on January 4, 2011 by Abbott & Kindermann
Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update
Reserve your seat for one of three seminars taking place in 2011.
In January and February 2011 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 2011 will be discussed:
- Global Warming: CEQA Guidelines, Mandatory Reporting, AB 32
- Water Supply Assessments
- CEQA Litigation: Exemptions, Setting the Baseline, Alternative Analysis & Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
- Subdivision Map Extensions
- Interpreting Development Agreements
- Agricultural Land Mitigation
- New General Permit Under Clean Water 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 20, 2011
- 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: Tuesday, February 8, 2011
- 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 11, 2011
- 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.
Posted on December 16, 2010 by Abbott & Kindermann
California Air Resources Board is Expected to Adopt the California Cap and Trade Program at today's hearing.
According to the Air Resources Board, the Program:
- Limits emissions from sources responsible for 85 percent of California’s Green House Gas emissions;
- Establishes the price signal needed to drive long-term investment in cleaner fuels and more efficient use of energy; and
- Affords covered entities flexibility to seek out and implement the lowest-cost options to reduce emissions.
For more details see the Initial Statement of Reason at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/capandtrade10/capisor.pdf
Posted on December 14, 2010 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Katherine J. Hart
For those of us who assist jurisdictions with their land use planning, general plan updates often raise enormous policy issues which undoubtedly turn to legal issues – some of which have never been addressed by the courts. The controversy surrounding the conversion of agricultural land – especially in rural counties – has been brewing for some time now. And, as most know, there have been no cases addressing whether Section 815.3(b) of the Civil Code applies to agricultural conservation easements mandated by a city or county’s general plan policies . . . until now.
Continue Reading...
Posted on December 1, 2010 by Abbott & Kindermann
Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update
Reserve your seat for one of three seminars taking place in 2011.
In January and February 2011 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 2011 will be discussed:
- Global Warming: CEQA Guidelines, Mandatory Reporting, AB 32
- Water Supply Assessments
- CEQA Litigation: Exemptions, Setting the Baseline, Alternative Analysis & Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
- Subdivision Map Extensions
- Interpreting Development Agreements
- Agricultural Land Mitigation
- New General Permit Under Clean Water 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 20, 2011
- 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: Tuesday, February 8, 2011
- 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 11, 2011
- 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.
Posted on November 10, 2010 by Abbott & Kindermann
By William W. Abbott
Divine purposes are not a free pass from local zoning regulations. In County of Los Angeles v. Sahag-Mesrob Armenian Christian School (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 85, the Sahag-Mesrob Armenian Church owned two parcels zoned R-1, and on May 28, 2008, filed an application for a conditional use permit to operate an 800 student school. In September of the same year, the County received complaints that the school was operating in advance of the issuance of the conditional use permit. The County conducted an inspection, verified that the school was operating, and issued a Notice of Violation, giving the school 15 days to cease operation. Within this 15 day period, the Church applied for a “clean hands waiver” from the County, which would allow it to operate during the pendency of the use permit review and processing. The County denied the waiver request. The County then issued a final code enforcement order directing that the school cease operating within 15 days. This order was appealed and denied. Following subsequent verification that the school was still operating, the County filed a code enforcement action, and sought a preliminary injunction against the Church for operating the school illegally. The trial court granted the preliminary injunction and the church appealed.
Continue Reading...
Posted on October 12, 2010 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Katherine J. Hart
On September 30, 2010, the Governor signed Senate Bill 1284 (Ducheny) into law (Chapter 645). Ever since their adoption, Mandatory Minimum Penalties or MMPs have created serious economic hardship for local wastewater agencies. While concerns remain about MMPs, the California Legislature and Governor granted some much needed relief to these local agencies.
Continue Reading...
Posted on September 7, 2010 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Emilio Camacho & Leslie Walker
The County of Sacramento kicked off Phase 2 of the Climate Action Plan development at a workshop on Wednesday, August 25, 2010. Phase 2 will develop strategies to implement the Climate Action Plan (CAP), a comprehensive plan for becoming more resource efficient and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, originally released in May 2009.
Continue Reading...
Posted on August 31, 2010 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Katherine J. Hart
The City of Los Angeles generally prohibits freeway, supergraphic and off-site billboards, but has adopted a few exceptions to the rule. For instance, it permits freeway signs and supergraphic and off-site signs in areas where specific plans are adopted to govern such signs or pursuant to development agreements, in accordance with its police power (the power to control local land use). Numerous billboard companies erected freeway and supergraphic signs all over the city. In 2008, the city adopted a moratorium on new supergraphic and off-site signs.
Continue Reading...
Posted on July 14, 2010 by Abbott & Kindermann
By William W. Abbott
One of the elements of a Proposition 218 election is the engineer’s report in support of the spread of assessments. As 218 places the burden on the agency adopting the assessment to justify the assessment, every agency facing the question of, how much information is required? The recent case of Beutz v. County of Riverside (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1516, sheds light on the subject.
Continue Reading...
Posted on July 12, 2010 by Abbott & Kindermann
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...
Posted on July 6, 2010 by Abbott & Kindermann
The following summary of 2010 legislation has been released by Peter M. Detweiler, Staff Director for the Senate Local Government Committee.
"With the legislative deadlines for policy committees now behind us, I want you to know about some of the more interesting bills that the Senate Local Government Committee worked on during 2010. The urgency bills took effect on the day they were chaptered; regular bills will take effect on January 1, 2011.
Continue Reading...
Posted on May 14, 2010 by Abbott & Kindermann
By William W. Abbott
As a black-mark on the history of progressive thought in California, the voters, in 1950, enacted Article XXXIV as part of the California Constitution. It had the effect of requiring voter approval of low rent housing projects. Over time, the legislature had codified various interpretations, excluding from the voter approval process, certain types of affordable projects. On a parallel path, the legislature has modified the redevelopment law to ensure that there are minimum expenditures for affordable housing. After all, how many automalls, big box retailers and movie theaters does California really need to fund through the redevelopment process?
Continue Reading...
Posted on March 25, 2010 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Katherine J. Hart
In Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District et al., the California Supreme Court determined that the air district issuing a new permit to a petroleum refinery seeking to introduce a new industrial process to its existing refinery, incorrectly determined the baseline upon which to analyze environmental impacts. Specifically, the Court concluded the baseline could not be based on the maximum permitted operating capacity of the existing equipment but rather had to be based on the physical conditions actually existing at the time of environmental analysis. The facts are as follows.
Continue Reading...
Posted on March 4, 2010 by Abbott & Kindermann
By: Katherine J. Hart
As determined by the California Supreme Court 27 years ago, local agencies may impose a fee for the filing of an appeal of a CEQA decision so long as that fee is reasonable.
In the case at hand, the planning commission of the City of Glendora adopted an addendum to a negative declaration (“Addendum”) and approved a project on February 12, 2008. Petitioner Erica Landmann-Johnsey (“Petitioner”) wanted to appeal the CEQA decision to the city council, but in order to do so, was required to pay a $2,000 appeal fee. Petitioner filed her appeal and paid the fee under protest.
Continue Reading...
Posted on February 16, 2010 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Leslie Z. Walker
Today, February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law filed the Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines addressing greenhouse gas emissions (“Amendments”) with the Secretary of State. The Amendments require the quantification and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. (For more information about the Amendments, see OPR Finalizes Proposed CEQA Guidelines and Transmits Them to Resources Agency and CEQA Guidelines on Greenhouse Gases One Step Closer to Law.) The Amendments will become effective on March 18, 2010. Lead agencies should consult Guidelines section 15007 to determine when the Amendments apply to the agency’s actions.
Continue Reading...
Posted on February 3, 2010 by Abbott & Kindermann
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...
Posted on January 13, 2010 by Abbott & Kindermann
From the quick fix solutions for the Delta to CEQA analysis on mitigation deferral, impact fees and the feasibility of alternatives, to the scope of the Corps permitting authority, the following legislation, regulations, and cases from 2009 (listed first by type of document, then in chronological order) will have the most impact on water supply, water quality, and land use and entitlement practice (e.g., development) in California in the coming years. And remember, you read it here first!
Continue Reading...
Posted on December 16, 2009 by Abbott & Kindermann
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...
Posted on December 8, 2009 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Leslie Z. Walker
In California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, the Sixth District Court of Appeals upheld an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the master plan of a greenbelt, against appellant’s attack on the range of alternatives and findings of infeasibility.
Continue Reading...
Posted on November 10, 2009 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Cori Badgley
Since the passage of Proposition 13, cities and counties have been prohibited from reassessing property taxes until a property is sold or transferred, at which point the property tax cannot exceed one percent of the assessed value. This means that once the initial assessed value has been determined, the assessment for the purpose of property tax evaluation is essentially “frozen” in time, with a maximum increase in the annual cap for inflation of two percent. This leaves the cities and counties with one opportunity to reassess the property value upon acquisition of the property. Generally, the question of what constitutes a “transfer” or “sale” is easily answered. In terms of corporations and partnerships, however, the question can become a more difficult.
Continue Reading...
Posted on October 8, 2009 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Cori Badgley
In San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District v. San Bernardino Local Agency Formation Commission (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 190, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District addressed the statutory interpretation of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Gov. Code, §§ 56000 et seq., 57000 et seq.) (“CKH Act”) as it relates to water districts. Specifically, San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District (“SBVWCD”) argued that the repeal of certain sections in the Water Code relating to consolidation meant that LAFCo had no authority over the consolidation of water districts. The appellate court disagreed.
Continue Reading...
Posted on September 15, 2009 by Abbott & Kindermann
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...
Posted on September 10, 2009 by Abbott & Kindermann
William W. Abbott, partner of Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will be speaking on the following topic on Monday September 14, 2009 at 11:45 a.m.
“Preservation of Local Government Approvals”
Location:
- The Firehouse Restaurant – Golden Eagle Room
- 112 Second Street
- Old Sacramento, California
- Telephone: (916) 442-4772
Date/Time:
- Monday, September 14, 2009 at 11:45 a.m.
Posted on August 11, 2009 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Glen Hansen
In Lin v. City of Pleasanton, 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1170, the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held that, barring extreme circumstances,Elections Code section 9238, subdivision (b)(2), does not require a referendum petition to include documents that were neither attached to the challenged ordinance, nor incorporated by reference.
Continue Reading...
Posted on June 16, 2009 by Abbott & Kindermann
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...
Posted on June 10, 2009 by Abbott & Kindermann
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...
Posted on May 20, 2009 by Abbott & Kindermann
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...
Posted on February 11, 2009 by Abbott & Kindermann
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.
Posted on January 14, 2009 by Abbott & Kindermann
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...
Posted on January 13, 2009 by Abbott & Kindermann
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...
Posted on November 3, 2008 by Abbott & Kindermann
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...
Posted on August 18, 2008 by Abbott & Kindermann
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...
Posted on August 13, 2008 by Abbott & Kindermann
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...
Posted on May 12, 2008 by Abbott & Kindermann
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...
Posted on May 16, 2007 by Abbott & Kindermann
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...
Posted on December 4, 2006 by Abbott & Kindermann
By William W. Abbott
When it comes to administrative appeals of land use decisions, state law largely delegates to cities and counties the choice of being flexible or rigid on administrative appeals (e.g. tentative subdivision map approvals, conditional use permits, CEQA documents). Most cities and counties opt for a de novo review by the appellate body. This means that the appellate body effectively starts over on the decision, and it is empowered to make any decision it deems to be appropriate under the circumstances. As illustrated by the recent decision of
Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (Browman Development Co., real party in interest) 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1764, de novo review may permit a project opponent to challenge in court the adequacy of the CEQA document, even though the appeal to the city council was on non-CEQA grounds.
Continue Reading...
Posted on August 11, 2006 by Abbott & Kindermann
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...
Posted on November 1, 2005 by Janell Bogue
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...
Posted on September 1, 2005 by Janell Bogue
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...
Posted on March 28, 2005 by Janell Bogue
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...
Posted on August 1, 2004 by Janell Bogue
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.
Continue Reading...
