& Development

Subscribe to & Development via RSS

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 incentives to do so. 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. This year, the First Appellate District Court of Appeal heard the first case interpreting the amendments of SB 1818.
Continue Reading Density Bonus Law Update: An Overview of the Law and A Look at the First Case to Interpret the 2004 Amendments

By Cori Badgley and Kate Hart

“When is a project consistent with a general plan?” continues to be a question faced by local governments, developers, environmental advocates, and of course, the courts. A recent case out of Solano County, Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (August 28, 2007) 2007 Cal.App.LEXIS 1424, illustrates the important role the drafters of the general plan play in establishing the consistency parameters for the projects that follow.
Continue Reading Flexible General Plan Leads to Flexible Consistency

By Kate J. Hart and Brian Hoffman

On June 7, 2007, the California Supreme Court addressed head on the issue of whether or not cities may use their planning and zoning powers to directly impact economic competition. The case is Adrian Hernandez v. City of Hanford (June 7, 2007) 2007 Cal.Lexis 5586. This case affirms the ability of cities to impact economic competition in a direct and intended manner because it allows just such an impact so long as the primary purpose of the zoning action is to achieve a valid public purpose and not simply to serve an impermissible anticompetitive private purpose.
Continue Reading Zoning, Business Competition and Public Purposes

By Leslie Walker and Joel Ellinwood, AICP

Establishing estoppel against the government in land use matters requires additional findings not required against a private party. In Feduniak v. California Coastal Commission (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1346, two Pebble Beach landowners found out exactly how difficult that task can be.
Continue Reading The Difficulty in Establishing Estoppel Against A Public Agency

By Cori Badgley and William W. Abbott

After the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, public entities shifted funding strategies to backfill for the loss of property tax revenue. Proposition 13, codified as article XIII A of the California Constitution, provided that state and local governments are prohibited from imposing special taxes unless the tax is approved by a “two-thirds vote of the qualified electors.” Article XIII A forced the courts to wrestle with the question of how to define special tax as compared to a regulatory fee. Early cases addressed section 4 of article XIII A, which concerned local governments. It was not until 1997 that the California Supreme Court had the opportunity to address the distinction between special taxes and regulatory fees in the context of state agencies. This article summarizes the evolution of the fine line between regulatory fees and special taxes.
Continue Reading Regulatory Fees After Proposition 13: An Update

By William W. Abbott
Citing the book “Exactions and Impact Fees in California”, the Third Appellate District ruled that the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, §§ 66410 et seq.) 90-day statute of limitations trumped the longer Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, §§ 66000 et seq.) timeline when reviewing a legal challenge to a subdivision map denial by the City of Chico. The case is Thomas Fogarty v. City of Chico (March 12, 2007) 2007 Cal.App.Lexis 339.
Continue Reading Appellate Court Cites Exactions and Impact Fees Book

By Janell M. Bogue

Recently, the Third Appellate District held that the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (“HCP”) was properly certified by the City of Sacramento and Sutter County (“City and County”) under CEQA and that the Department of Fish and Game (“DFG”) complied with the California Endangered Species Act (“CESA”) in issuing its incidental take permits. The case is Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018.
Continue Reading HCPs and Hawks and Snakes…Oh My!

By Rob Hofmann

Cultural artifacts and Native American remains receive different levels of protection under state and federal law. This article discusses the different laws and recent changes brought about by the passage of AB 2641.
Continue Reading Effective January 1, 2007, the California Legislature expands landowners’ obligation to repatriate Native American remains and associated cultural artifacts

By Elias E. Guzman
A court recently held in Peak Investments v. South Peak Homeowners Association, Inc. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1363, that the Davis-Stirling Act (“Act”) requires that a proposed CC&Rs amendment must be approved by a simple majority of the HOA members before a court may properly reduce the percentage of votes set by the CC&Rs.
Continue Reading Court Shuts Off Civil Code §1356 Safety Valve…Well, Halfway At Least