Local Government

Subscribe to Local Government via RSS

By Glen Hansen

In Lin v. City of Pleasanton, 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1170, the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held that, barring extreme circumstances,Elections Code section 9238, subdivision (b)(2), does not require a referendum petition to include documents that were neither attached to the challenged ordinance, nor incorporated by reference.
Continue Reading A Referendum Petition does not have to Contain Documents that are only Referred to in a Challenged Ordinance

By Cori Badgley

In Health First v. March Joint Powers Authority (2009) (Case No. E045541), the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District addressed the issue of whether the approval of a Design Plan Application was discretionary, thus requiring review pursuant to CEQA. The court held that approval of the Design Plan Application was ministerial, not discretionary, and therefore, CEQA did not apply.
Continue Reading Approval of Design Plan Application Deemed “Ministerial” Under CEQA

By Leslie Z Walker

In Ste. Marie v. Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District (2009) 46 Cal.4th 282, the Supreme Court resolved an apparent conflict between Public Resources Code sections 5540 and 5565 in favor of a park district’s ability to hold real property without dedicating it to park or open space purposes.
Continue Reading Land Held by Park District Not Automatically Dedicated

By Cori Badgley

In Hofman Ranch v. Yuba County Local Agency Formation Commission, 172 Cal.App.4th 805 (2009), the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District held that an independent contractor hired by the Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCo”) acting as LAFCo’s executive officer, was, for the purpose of the Brown Act, an employee of LAFCo. Because the independent contractor was an employee, LAFCo lawfully held a closed session to discuss the contractor’s employment terms pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act.
Continue Reading “Independent Contractor” Still Considered “Public Employee” Under the Brown Act

The Governors Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit announced that they will not be accepting CEQA documents for review or processing on the first and third Fridays of each month, now through June 30, 2010. This notice is in response to the state agency furlough ordered by the Governor which has required the State Clearinghouse to close their doors two days per month for the next year and a half.
Continue Reading CEQA Notice Postings and Review Periods Affected by State Agency Furloughs

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 Nathan Jones and Leslie Z. Walker

In May of 2006, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance “Adopting the redevelopment plan for the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project” (“Ordinance”). The ordinance increased the size of redevelopment activity in Bayview-Hunter’s Point from 147 acres to 1,500 acres. Many in the community viewed the redevelopment project as an attempt to gentrify the area aimed at dispossessing working-class residents in the area. The case of Defend Bayview Hunters Point Committee v. City and County of San Francisco (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 846, illustrates a pitfall for organizers who fail to attach reference materials of substance to a petition challenging a local redevelopment ordinance.
Continue Reading Full Disclosure- Reference Documents Must be Attached to Referendum Petition to be Legally Sufficient Under State Elections Code

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

By Cori Badgley

In Los Altos Golf and Country Club v. County of Santa Clara (June 30, 2008) 2008 Cal.App.Lexis 1149, plaintiffs brought a class action demanding a refund from the County of sewer service charges paid by plaintiffs on the grounds that the fees violated Article XIII D of the California Constitution and the Health and Safety Code. Instead of allowing plaintiffs to make any substantive arguments, the County claimed that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs had failed to pay the fees under protest, as required by the Health and Safety Code. The Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District agreed with the County and dismissed the case. Sewer service charges must first be paid under protest in order to later request a refund.
Continue Reading Before Challenging Sewer Service Charges in Court, Thou Shall First Protest

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?