& Development

Subscribe to & Development via RSS

By Cori Badgley

The Attorney General’s Office declared in a press release on June 24, 2009 that it intervened in a suit against the City of Pleasanton to remove the City’s “draconian and illegal” housing cap. The housing cap, which was instituted in 1996 through Measure GG, limits housing to 29,000 units throughout the City. The City can only accommodate another 2,000 units, if the housing cap remains in place. According to the Attorney General, the job growth over the past 10 years has nearly doubled from 31,683 to more than 58,000, while the available housing has only increased by 7,000 units. The draft General Plan Update predicts the creation of 45,000 more jobs over the next 15 years. In addition to not meeting the City’s fair share regional housing needs, the Attorney General asserts that the housing cap will lead to increased traffic congestion, urban sprawl, greenhouse gas emissions and an increased dependence on foreign oil. As the case progresses, Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will provide further updates.
Continue Reading Attorney General Sues Pleasanton Over Illegal Housing Cap

The budget conference committee has proposed suspending Williamson Act subsidies for one year. For more information, see Budget Committee Highlights and letter from the California Association of Counties and Regional Council of Rural Counties. Please check back for updates on this proposal.
Continue Reading Senate Committee Proposes Suspending Williamson Act Relief

Have you participated in an outstanding planning project in the last year? Do you know someone who should be recognized for their leadership in planning? Nominate a project or person for one of the award categories below by Monday, April 6, 2009.
Continue Reading Less Than Two Weeks Left to Submit Your Application for the Sacramento Valley Section APA Awards

By William W. Abbott

We all are familiar with the State of California in its role in land planning and development as the uber regulator. But if you turn back the hands of time immediately before World War I, a different picture emerges; that of land developer.
Continue Reading An Historic Tale of Two Towns: The State of California as a Planner and Subdivider, Part I

By Cori M. Badgley and Nathan Jones

In Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 229, a developer asserted that a temporary regulatory taking occurred when the County of Santa Cruz (“County”) improperly and unlawfully delayed granting a ministerial permit for electricity. After extensively analyzing the various regulatory takings tests, the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, held that no regulatory taking had occurred.
Continue Reading Delay in Granting Ministerial Electrical Permit is Not a Regulatory Taking

By William W. Abbott and Nathan Jones

According to leading lifestyle magazines, the status question is no longer: who is your architect, but: who is your land use attorney? And if you want to build your dream house along the coast, your attorney’s telephone number needs to be on your cell phone’s speed dial.
Continue Reading Dream Home Checklist: Architect, Contractor, Land Use Attorney

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 Extending A Temporary Growth Control Plan Reopens The Statute of Limitations To Legal Challenges

By Cori Badgley and Nathan Jones

Estoppel is a pervasive legal concept dating back to the common law of England. Though it takes many forms, its application revolves around a party’s action or inaction to the prejudice of the other side or to a decision maker. Estoppel is a legal doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts (e.g. words said or actions performed) which differs from an earlier set of facts. Inquasi-judicial tribunals like the Coastal Commission, the agency may both oppose you and act in a judicial capacity. The case of Mt. Holyoke Homes, LP v. California Coastal Commission (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th illustrates that estoppel applies when a party continues to negotiate with the California Coastal Commission (“Commission”) even though the Coastal Commission has already lost jurisdiction over the disputed matter.
Continue Reading Peril for the Unwary: Use It or Lose It Against The Coastal Commission

By Leslie Walker and Nathan Jones

The following case exemplifies that a developer cannot instigate litigation attacking a proposed ordinance until a municipal government has passed the ordinance in question. The matter of Stonehouse Homes, LLC. v. City of Sierra Madre (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 531, more broadly holds that to maintain a declaratory relief action, a plaintiff must be able to demonstrate a present conflict in addition to showing the existence of tangible injury.
Continue Reading Putting The Cart Before the Horse – Developer Cannot Pursue Declaratory Judgment Before City Council Passes Final Housing Ordinance

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 SB 375: A Subtle Shift in the State-Local Long Range Planning Paradigm