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 of providing meaningful incentives, at least in those cities and counties opposed to the idea. Effective January 1, 2005, the Legislature further amended the density bonuses provisions to further increase the incentive and to decrease city and county discretion. Abbott & Kindermann, LLP explores this law at length in its April 2005 article Supersize This Project! The New Rules for Density Bonuses. The key provisions are summarized below: Density bonuses are available for projects consisting of 10% Lower Income, or 5% Very Low Income, or a seniors project, or where 10% of units in a condominium or planned development are affordable to moderate income households. For condominium or townhome builders, this last category has great appeal as the qualifying income requirements are the highest. Projects qualifying in this last category earn a 5% density bonus, with an additional 1% for each percent of added affordability for moderate income households. Qualifying condominium projects are also entitled from one to three incentives as well (10% affordable-1 incentive; 20% affordable-2 incentives; 30% affordable-3 incentives.) These incentives or concessions include reduction in site standards, parking, architectural standards or granting of mixed use approvals. For condominium projects, the affordable units are subject to an equity recapture provision which requires the seller to share appreciation with the city or county. All cities and counties must adopt local ordinances to implement this law. Regardless of the type of project, the granting of a density bonus is not a basis to require a general plan or Local Coastal Plan amendment, zoning change or discretionary approval. Utilization of the density bonuses and incentives/concessions can impact project design. As the Legislature did not exempt these actions from CEQA review, it is important for the developer to work with the city up front to identify the compliance strategy, so that the environmental review will address all project features. William W. Abbott is a partner with Abbott and Kindermann, LLP. For questions relating to this article or any other California land use, environmental and planning issues contact Abbott & Kindermann at (916) 456-9595. The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Because of the changing nature of this area of the law and the importance of individual facts, readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.

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”)

by Elias E. Guzman

In Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, an appellate court determined that project approvals and findings must be consistent with a county’s general plan. The court also found that an environmental impact report (“EIR”) must provide sufficient information to the lead agency in order to make an informed decision. Continue Reading General Plan Consistency and EIR Sufficiency

by William W. Abbott and Janell M. Bogue

It can safely be said that CEQA has gone to the dogs. In Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, we learn that failure to document the possibilities for changes in what most of us understand to be normal canine behavior may be the basis to invalidate an initial study, and in turn, a negative declaration. Continue Reading See Spot Write an Expanded Initial Study

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 Chapman v. Superior Court: Public Officials Should Use Caution

by William W. Abbott Most readers of this newsletter are already aware that the evidentiary threshold necessary to push a ND into an EIR is relatively low. In a June 2005 Abbott & Kindermann article, we discussed the decision of Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, a Third Appellate District decision. On the heels of Pocket Protectors now comes Mejia vs. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, another court of appeal decision, now from the Second Appellate District. Maria Mejia, a non-lawyer, beat both the City Attorney’s office and developer’s legal counsel twice, winning multiple arguments along the way. The project history, and her winning arguments, are as follows: Continue Reading Negative Declarations: Fair Argument, Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis

by William W. Abbott

In San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (2005) 125 S.Ct. 2491, the United States Supreme Court ventured once again in the area of takings jurisprudence, addressing the circumstances in which property owners may be trapped in state court rather than federal district court. As disappointed property owners typically prefer federal court, the San Remo decision is important and overdue as a clarification as to litigation tactics. Continue Reading Hotel San Remo: You Can Check Out, But Can You Ever Leave?

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.