& Development

Subscribe to & Development via RSS

By William W. Abbott

Sometimes, the moral of an appellate court decision is hard to find. In this case, I think it is buried in the footnotes. Many cities and counties now use administrative procedures including monetary citations as part of zoning and building code enforcement. Procedurally, a party subject of an adverse order has two avenues of appeal. First, a de novo appeal can be filed and heard by the superior court, or as illustrated in the recent case of Martin v. Riverside County Department of Code Enforcement (September 19, 2008) 2008 Cal.App.Lexis 1444, a challenge via a petition for writ of mandate serves as an alternative remedy. (Gov. Code § 53069.4(b)(1).)…
Continue Reading Zoning Citations: Next Time, Pay the Fine!

By Cori M. Badgley and Diane Kindermann

In Sunset Skyranch Pilots Association v. County of Sacramento (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 671, the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District addressed two separate issues: 1) does the State Aeronautics Act (“SAA”) preempt the County’s decision to deny renewal of Sunset Skyranch Pilots Association (“Airport”) conditional use permit (“CUP”), and 2) does the denial of the CUP renewal constitute a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)? The appellate court held that the SAA did not preempt the County’s decision, and denial of the renewal of the CUP did constitute a project under CEQA.
Continue Reading Court Holds that County Has Power to Deny Conditional Use Permit Renewal, but CEQA Applies

By Kate J. Hart and Janell M. Bogue

In County of Humboldt v. McKee (August 15, 2008) 2008 Cal.App.Lexis 1248, the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District examined the state’s Williamson Act. The court determined that Humboldt County (“County”) Williamson Act guidelines, adopted in 1978 (the “1978 guidelines”), governed a Williamson Act contract signed in 1977. This holding meant that the new owners, Buck Mountain Ranch Limited Partnership, and the McKee’s, (collectively “Mckee”) of Tooby Ranch, consisting of over 10,000 acres, violated the Williamson Act by dividing it into parcels of 160 acres in size. This size of parcel was allowed under the County’s previous guidelines (the “1973 guidelines”).
Continue Reading Guidelines Adopted Subsequent to Williamson Act Contract Are Enforceable

By Glen Hansen

The recent decision by the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District in Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1561, vividly illustrates the conflict that can arise between the desire by local voters to limit housing growth, the local jurisdiction’s obligations under state law to allow construction of low and moderate income housing, and the local officials’ reluctance to thwart the voters’ desire in order to meet those state obligations. That conflict invariably leads to litigation, even years after a no-growth initiative is passed by the voters.
Continue Reading Is the Local No-Growth Initiative Conflicting With The Local Low-Income Housing Obligations? When Is It Time To Sue?

By Cori Badgley

In the area of prescriptive easements, courts and practitioners have been challenged by the issue of who has the burden to prove “adverse use.” “The elements necessary to establish an easement by prescription are open and notorious use of another’s land, which use is continuous and uninterrupted for five years and adverse to the land’s owner.” Some courts have held that by providing evidence that the use is open, notorious and continuous, a presumption arises that the use is also adverse, and therefore, the defendants, and not the plaintiffs, must prove that the use is not adverse. The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District in Grant v. Ratliff (July 16, 2008) 2008 Cal.App.Lexis 1063, disagreed with these courts.
Continue Reading Long-time Debate Over Presumptions in Prescriptive Easement Cases Settled by Second Appellate District

By Cori M. Badgley

In St. Vincent’s School for Boys v. City of San Rafael (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 989, the court addressed various issues relating to the City of San Rafael’s (“City”) approval of a new general plan. The court also addressed a claim brought by the City against St. Vincent’s School for Boys (“St. Vincent’s”) regarding obtaining reasonable costs for record preparation.
Continue Reading Unwanted, Now Unplanned: City Says “No” to Annexation and Draws the Line on City Expansion

By Leslie Z. Walker

In Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Land Use Commission (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1, decided on June 19, 2008, the appellate court resolved the issues not addressed the first time it reviewed the case. (Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 810, reversed by Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission, (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372.) In this case, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District found that the Travis Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“TALUP”) was not inconsistent with the Air Force Installation Compatible Use Zone (“AICUZ”) and that the Solano County Airport Land Use Commission (“Commission”) did not abuse its discretion in adopting the TALUP.
Continue Reading The Rest of Muzzy Ranch: ALUCs Not Required to Adopt AICUZ Standards

By Cori M. Badgley

In Ocean Harbor House Homeowners Association v. California Coastal Commission (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 215, the California Coastal Commission (“Commission”) imposed a $5.3 million mitigation fee on a homeowner’s association that needed a permit to build a seawall to protect residences that would otherwise fall into the ocean. Attempting to find relief from the fee, the homeowner’s association sued the Commission, but the court denied all relief and upheld the fee.
Continue Reading A Detailed Record Can Make All the Difference: Court Upholds Commission’s Imposition of $5.3 Million Fee

By Cori M. Badgley and Kate J. Hart

In an attempt to invalidate or, at a minimum, get damages for the California Coastal Commission’s (“Commission”) denial of a coastal development permit, Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. (“Pratt”) brought suit against the Commission, claiming that the Commission’s decision violated Pratt’s vested right to develop its property and, in the alternative, if the decision was valid, the Commission committed a regulatory taking by denying the coastal development permit. In Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Commission (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1068, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District upheld the Commission’s denial of the permit and dismissed Pratt’s regulatory takings claim for lack of ripeness.
Continue Reading The Development Blues: Property Lies Undeveloped for 30 Years and Counting

By Glen Hansen

Applicants don’t like being denied a local land use permit. It is equally frustrating for project opponents who fail to stop an approval by a local governmental board to understand why the decision makers didn’t endorse their arguments. Many believe that the failure to prevail before an agency is not due to the merits of the cause, but is the result of some unstated, nefarious plot or bias in the collective heads of the agency board that rejected the position. However, the Court of Appeal recently reminded us that digging into the thought process of administrative officials is generally out of bounds.
Continue Reading DON’T GO THERE! Inquiring into the Thought Processes of Government Officials