By William W. Abbott

Orange Citizens for Parks and Recreation v. The Superior Court of Orange County (July 10, 2013, G047013) ___ Cal.App.4th ___.

While not exactly a Dan Brown novel, the most recent planning law case illustrates the resulting agony which follows imprecise record keeping as to the status of previously adopted planning and regulatory documents, and how they fit in with updated general plans and other land use requirements. Without retracing all the subtle nuanced facts, this case starts with the adoption of the 1973 Orange Park Acres Specific Plan. When the City Council adopted the plan, it included amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, nearly 40 years later, it was not clear as to what exactly those amendments were, a matter of some consequence in a later land use dispute. Over time, the City dropped the word “specific” from the plan document. The Orange Park plan was amended in later years, and was incorporated in the local general plan in 1989 and again in 2010 in the updated general plan. The descriptions of the planning document, and well as reference to the applicable land use standards varied overtime. As planners, developers, commissioners and elected officials come and go, an inconsistent understanding of the document over time is hardly surprising.Continue Reading Now You See It, Now You Don’t: The Mystery Of The Orange Park Acres Specific Plan.

By William W. Abbott

Three recent cases land at the periphery of the zone of interest for land use practitioners. While not warranting an exhaustive review, these decisions can and should be slated away for potential future use.Continue Reading A Trifecta Of Outliers: Three Cases On The Outer Edges Of Land Use And Environmental Practice

By William W. Abbott

On February 15, 2013, OPR released its Technical Advisory on Senate Bill 244, a thoughtful discussion on how cities, counties and LAFCos can implement Senate Bill 244 (Wolk) of 2011. The purpose of this legislation is to recognize and facilitate improvements to disadvantaged communities. As with general plans, it is…

Time waits for no litigant in California land use litigation.
Continue Reading The Ninety Day Period to Challenge a Land Use Approval is Not Extended by More General Rules Governing Administrative Mandamus

In Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 U.S.App. LEXIS 25581 (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a church’s claim that a land use permit regulation violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (“RLUIPA”) was not ripe for judicial review because the church had not completed the requirements for the use permit, and therefore the courts could not determine the particular burden that the church would have to shoulder under the challenged regulation. The court left open the possible argument that the financial cost of complying with a land use permit regulation was so unreasonable or unattainable for a religious institution that such cost could constitute a “substantial burden” on the institution in violation of RLUIPA.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Applies Ripeness Requirement To RLUIPA Claims

City engages in impermissible spot zoning and a compensable taking where it creates a “one-house-per-20-acre island in a two-to-six-house-per-acre sea.”…
Continue Reading Compensable Taking Found Where City’s Spot Zoning Created “A One-House-Per-20-Acre Island In A Two-To-Six-House-Per-Acre Sea”

Under Public Resources Code section 30603, subdivision (a)(4), the California Coastal Commission has appellate jurisdiction over a project within the coastal zone that needs subdivision approval, even if the project involves the construction of a principal permitted use under the local coastal plan.
Continue Reading Coastal Commission Has Appellate Jurisdiction Over A Project That Needs Subdivision Approval, Even If The Project’s Use Complies With The Local Coastal Plan