Planning, Zoning, & Development

Subscribe to Planning, Zoning, & Development via RSS

by Joel Ellinwood, AICP

Developers and the general public think of townhouses as dwellings built on separate lots with common walls shared with neighboring property owners, as being more like single family homes. Each unit has a direct connection to the earth below and sky above. Condominiums, on the other hand, are perceived as being cubicles within a larger structure, and only a shared interest in the real estate on which the structure is located and common areas within and around the building.
Continue Reading What is the Difference Between a Townhouse and a Condominium? Depending Upon the Statute, Most Likely Nothing.

by Janell M. Bogue

Recently in San Diego County, an association of residents of two subdivisions (“Association”) sued the developer that retained control over the architectural committees responsible for enforcing the community’s CC&Rs. Property Owners of Whispering Palms, Inc. v. Newport Pacific, Inc. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 666.
Continue Reading DRE Regulations on Architectural Control Committees Apply Only to Common Interest Subdivisions

by Elias E. Guzman

In Acosta v. Glenfed Development Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1278, the court of appeal recently held that a developer/general contractor can be liable long after the 10 year statute of limitation period for the willful misconduct of subcontractors involved in the project.
Continue Reading Exception to 10-Year Statute of Limitations Rule for Construction Defect Litigation

As a general limitation, the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, §§ 51-51.4), bars any form of discrimination in residential developments unless expressly permitted. Senior citizen housing is one of the exceptions. In order to comply with the Act, the development is subject to limitations impacting physical design, age and related occupancy, and operation of…

by William W. Abbott Concerned over the supply of affordable housing, the Legislature has in recent years sought to create incentives for developers. One incentive area involves density bonuses. (Gov. Code, § 65915.) Although this concept has been embodied in the state zoning law for a number of years, it failed to achieve its purpose…

by Elias E. Guzman

In Woodridge Escondido Property Owners Assn. v. Nielsen (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 559, the court of appeal recently affirmed a trial court’s ruling that a homeowner’s construction of a wooden deck encroached upon a side yard easement in violation of the homeowner associations’ declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (“CC&Rs”).
Continue Reading Woodridge: Encroaching Decks and CC&Rs?

by Joel Ellinwood, AICP

The anti-discrimination law of California (Fair Employment and Housing Act or “FEHA”) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) require that newly constructed dwellings be accessible. Under the FEHA, “covered multi-family dwellings” for which building permits are applied after July 1, 2005, must be designed to be accessible for and useable by disabled persons. (Gov. Code, § 12955.1). This somewhat awkward term is even more inartfully and obscurely defined in Government Code section 12955.1.1, as meaning:

* A building with at least four condominium units or three rental units if the building has an elevator; or,
* The ground floor of dwelling units in buildings with at least four condominium units or three rental units if the building does not have an elevator.
Continue Reading California Multi-Family Development Accessibility Requirements (aka “Universal Design”)

The California Air Resources Board released an informational guide to air quality and land use issues. Among other suggestions, it recommends that planners avoid siting new sensitive land uses (residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds, or medical facilities) within 1,000 feet of major rail yards. For more information, download the handbook at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm.

by Joel Ellinwood, AICP

California’s Court of Appeal buried the vested rights argument of a Los Angeles (“City”) business six feet under in upholding the City’s revocation of a building permit and denial of a certificate of occupancy. The court ruled for the City despite the purchaser’s purported reliance on the permit in acquiring the building and the expenditure of nearly a quarter million dollars on improvements in the six month period after the original issuance of the permit. The City pulled the permit after the applicant, doing business as “1-800-AUTOPSY,” applied for a sign permit which would prominently display the name. It was then, the City claimed, when it first realized the nature of the business and determined that it is a prohibited use within the applicable zone in the Foothill Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan area. The business, Autopsy/Post Services, Inc., (“APS”) applied for an exception to the use restrictions, but the Planning Commission denied it, ruling that an private autopsy business was the equivalent of a morgue or mortuary which are permitted uses only in an industrial zone. After administrative appeals within City government, APS filed a mandate action claiming vested rights. The trial court denied the writ and APS appealed.
Continue Reading Vested Rights? Over My Dead Body!