Planning, Zoning, & Development

Subscribe to Planning, Zoning, & Development via RSS

By Cori Badgley

In 2009, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made a controversial determination that a rent control ordinance relating to mobilehome parks constituted a regulatory taking. (See “Take This! Wealth-Transfer under Rent Control Ordinance Constitutes a Regulatory Taking.”) In 2010 in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta (December 22, 2010, No. 06-56306) __ F.3d __ (“Guggenheim II”), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc reversed its previous decision, holding that the plaintiffs had no distinct investment-backed expectations when they purchased the property. Therefore, the rent control ordinance did not constitute a taking of their property.Continue Reading You Get What You Pay For: Rent Control Ordinance Upheld by Ninth Circuit

In League of Wilderness Defenders-Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Allen, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals focused on two well-known principles of environmental review: 1) cumulative impacts may be evaluated using an aggregate effects approach; and 2) an agency is only required to adequately acknowledge and respond to comments raised by opposing parties, including opposing expert analysis.
Continue Reading Commercial Logging on Forest Lands Upheld by Ninth Circuit

An appellate court sets aside a newly adopted general plan on grounds of incompatibility with the State Aeronautics Act, and on the basis of failure to consider a lower growth alternative in the EIR.

It has long been said that the general plan is the constitution for development and growth. In reality, the general plan has, on a selected basis, been subverted to other special planning purposes such as coastal planning, preservation of San Francisco Bay and Lake Tahoe and, as in the subject to this article, airport planning.
Continue Reading City’s New General Plan is not Cleared for Take-off, Returns to Base and is Grounded: Court Sets Aside Watsonville General Plan for Non Compliance with State Aeronautical Act and CEQA Requirements

By Cori M. Badgley and William W. Abbott

In 2004, SB 1818 amended section 65915 of the Government Code, pertaining to the density bonus law. The purpose of SB 1818 was to encourage developers to build affordable housing by requiring local governments to provide meaningful incentives. There was confusion in understanding the new provisions in Government Code section 65915 and the legislature clarified the density bonus law a year later with the enactment of SB 435. The legislature has made minor revisions since SB 435 that further the purpose of the 2004 amendments. (See “Overview of Density Bonus Law” below for an outline of the current requirements.)…
Continue Reading Density Bonus Law Update: Statutory Refinements and Recent Cases

By Cori Badgley

Traditionally, land use planning generally has been left to counties and cities. On a selected basis, the legislature has intervened and added an overlapping layer of state regulation, such as the Coastal Commission, Cal TRPA and BCDC. With state mandated housing elements, cities in particular have had to take a more regional perspective in addressing housing needs. SB 375 in 2008 added to the subtle shift in the local-state planning paradigm. Now, the state is embarking on an unprecedented process to create a preferred land use scenario for all of California. This process is called Vision California, and it has a 2050 planning horizon.
Continue Reading Vision California: Centralization of Land Use Planning at the State Level?

By Cori Badgley

The Compassionate Use Act (Health and Safety Code § 11362.5) and the Medical Marijuana Program (Health and Safety Code § 11362.5) legalized the use and distribution of medical marijuana subject to specific restrictions outlined in the statutes. Many cities, such as the City of Claremont, do not have areas zoned to permit medical marijuana dispensaries. In City of Claremont v. Kruse (2009) (Case No. B210084), the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District addressed whether the state statutes preempted the City from refusing to permit a medical marijuana dispensary and declaring it a nuisance. The court held that the City’s actions were not preempted and that the defendants continued operation of the medical marijuana dispensary constituted a nuisance.
Continue Reading City Not Required to Zone for Medical Marijuana