Local Government

Subscribe to Local Government via RSS

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

By Kate J. Hart

On May 10, 2007, the California Second District Court of Appeal issued a potentially significant decision concerning unfunded state mandates dictated by a Regional Board permit issued in 2001. The case is County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (May 10, 2007) 2007 Cal.App.Lexis 711. This case goes to the heart of state enforced regulatory authority because it calls into question whether the Regional Boards can issue permits (or enforcement orders) that require local governments, special districts, cities and counties to comply with a “new program or [provide] higher level of service of any existing program” without providing reimbursement for additional program costs.
Continue Reading County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates and the Regional Water Quality Control Board

By William W. Abbott

When it comes to administrative appeals of land use decisions, state law largely delegates to cities and counties the choice of being flexible or rigid on administrative appeals (e.g. tentative subdivision map approvals, conditional use permits, CEQA documents). Most cities and counties opt for a de novo review by the appellate body. This means that the appellate body effectively starts over on the decision, and it is empowered to make any decision it deems to be appropriate under the circumstances. As illustrated by the recent decision of Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (Browman Development Co., real party in interest) 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1764, de novo review may permit a project opponent to challenge in court the adequacy of the CEQA document, even though the appeal to the city council was on non-CEQA grounds.
Continue Reading Local Administrative Rules Leave Door Open for CEQA Challenge

By Joel Ellinwood, AICP
Recognizing that the often seemingly interminable delay by local agencies in development permit processing drives up costs of providing housing and other desirable projects, the development industry succeeded in persuading the legislature to impose what at first glance appear to be strict timelines for the agency to approve or disapprove projects. The timelines are given teeth by provisions which may result in projects being “deemed approved” if the agency fails to act within the time provided. However, as the recent case of Mahon v. County of San Mateo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 812 (modified June 19, 2006) illustrates, the teeth don’t seem to have much bite…
Continue Reading Take Notice!

by William W. Abbott

How far can a city council go in closed session in settling litigation involving a land use dispute? We have a better idea after reading Trancas Property Owners Association v. City of Malibu (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1245 (rehearing granted October 26, 2005). In the eyes of the Second District Court of Appeal, the city council cannot (1) contract away the police power (the authority to apply later enacted zoning), and (2) make land use decisions which would otherwise be subject to a public hearing process.
Continue Reading Municipal Authority to Settle Litigation in Closed Session

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 Joel Ellinwood, AICP

Peter Detwiler, chief consultant for the California State Senate’s Committee on Local Government and long-time legislative staffer on land use planning issues has a new theme. In talks at professional planning seminars around the state, he is warning of a potential new weapon in the litigation arsenal of those opposing development in areas being annexed to cities or special districts. Whether Detwiler is right, or merely singing another version of “the sky is falling,” his pitch is worth paying attention to. He recently presented it at the annual Land Use Conference sponsored by UCLA and at the Sacramento Chapter of the American Planning Association luncheon speaker series. It goes like this.
Continue Reading Legislative Leader Lilts, “LAFCo Litigation Looms.”

by William W. Abbott and Heather Gerken

Land use applicants frequently fail to appreciate the deference that a reviewing court must give a city council or board of supervisors. Disgruntled with an adverse decision, an adversely affected applicant often believes that they are entitled to re-argue the merits of their position. As the following cases illustrate, judicial review of controversial land use regulations does not start with a blank canvas.
Continue Reading California Courts Reaffirm the Broad Discretion Held by Cities and Counties in Enacting Land Use Regulations and Setting Policy