Local Government

Subscribe to Local Government via RSS

By Katherine J. Hart

In addressing their fair share regional housing needs, cities are required to include in their housing elements, site inventory for parcels able to be developed with multifamily housing for seniors and low income residents. However, when surrounding parcels have been built out, existing homeowners may object to the inclusion of such housing in their neighborhood.Continue Reading General Plan Inconsistencies Created By Revisions To Housing Element Can Be Remedied Through Timely Implementation Plan To Conform Inconsistent Elements

In Chung v. City of Monterey Park (October 23, 2012, B233859) ___Cal.App.4th ___, the City Council directed staff to prepare a ballot measure that would require the City to seek competitive bids for trash service when the current contractor’s contract was complete in 2017, and provide a new bidding opportunity every five years thereafter. Chung, a resident of the City and signatory to the ballot arguments against the measure, filed suit to remove the measure from the ballot arguing the City violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by failing to perform environmental review and because the Council “had deemed Measure BB a voter ‘initiative,’” but failed to follow the initiative measure requirements for a petition and thus, unconstitutionally restricted the actions of future City Councils.Continue Reading No Commitment, No “Project”

By Katherine J. Hart

Just short of one year from signing Senate Bill 436 into law, Governor Brown signed urgency measure Senate Bill 1094 into law in late September to clarify endowment requirements for lands held by public or private entities to mitigate impacts on natural resources.Continue Reading GOVERNOR SIGNS URGENCY MEASURE TO CLARIFY 2011 LAW ON ENDOWMENT FUNDS FOR MITIGATION LANDS

By William W. Abbott

While perhaps not surprising news to LAFCo wonks like Peter Detwiler, two recent decisions illustrate the special role that local agency formation commissions play in influencing local government and special district activities. The first decision, Citizens Association of Sunset Beach v. Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (October 5, 2012, G045878) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ , wrestles with the intersection of Proposition 218 voting requirements with LAFCo’s ability to order island annexations. (Government Code section 56375.3) Originally developed in 1904, Sunset Beach is a small, unincorporated enclave located adjacent to Huntington Beach. Confined to less than 134 acres, Sunset Beach is home to roughly 1200 permanent residents. As authorized by the Government Code, Orange County LAFCo (“OC LAFCo”), upon review of the location, size and status of Sunset Beach, concluded that the area met the qualification for an island annexation, and ordered it annexed to the agent city of Huntington Beach. At the time, existing property owners within the city limits of Huntington Beach paid two taxes that their adjacent neighbors in Sunset Beach did not pay: a five percent utility tax and a pre-Proposition 13 retirement property tax. LAFCos approval of the island annexation thus triggered the following question: did Proposition 218 give the Sunset Beach voters the right to vote on the taxes as a condition to the annexation going forward. Voters within Sunset Beach filed suit. The trial court decided that 218 voting requirements did not extend to LAFCo compelled island annexations completed under the authority of Government Code section 56375.3. The appellate court reached the same conclusion. In so deciding, the appellate court reviewed the history to voter enacted tax reform starting with Proposition 13 (1978). The appellate court reasoned that had the voters intended to apply the vote requirement to the then existing statutory scheme which authorized island annexations, the voters would have drafted the measure to expressly do so. Failing the ability to find that legislative objective in Proposition 218, the appellate court declined to read the proposition in a manner to reach a result not reasonably read into the adopted text.Continue Reading Two Recent Decisions Highlight the Special Powers Held By LAFCo

By Katherine J. Hart

In Voices for Rural Living v. El Dorado Irrigation District, the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s determinations that (1) the small project categorical exemption in CEQA did not apply to exempt an agreement for water service from CEQA review due to the unusual circumstances surrounding the agreement, and (2) a local water district lacked authority to disregard or deem unconstitutional annexation conditions previously imposed by the local agency formation commission (LAFCo).Continue Reading Class 3 CEQA Exemption: Unusual Circumstances Exception Becoming Less Unusual?

By Glen C. Hansen

In Conservatorship of Whitley (2010) 50 Cal. 4th 1206, the California Supreme Court examined the three requirements that litigants must prove in order to recover attorneys’ fees under California’s ‘private attorney general’ fee statute in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. Those factors are “(1) plaintiffs’ action ‘has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest,’ (2) ‘a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons’ and (3) ‘the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement are such as to make the award appropriate.’” (Id. at p. 1214 (citation omitted).)Continue Reading Only The Pecuniary Interests Of A Public Litigant May Be Considered When Awarding Attorneys’ Fees To The Public Litigant Under Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5

By William W. Abbott

Mobilehome parks represent meaningful opportunities for affordable housing. Conversions of rental mobilehome parks to individual ownerships can create affordable ownership opportunities for lower income families and individuals, or displacement of the same economically disadvantaged households burdened with a difficult-to-relocate housing asset. The legislature has struggled with crafting the appropriate protocols for cities and counties to follow when reviewing applications for park conversion. The most recent judicial decision involves city and county practice when determining whether or not an application represented a bona fide application to convert (Government Code section 66427.5.)Continue Reading Tenant Surveys Form Foundation of Denial of Mobilehome Park Conversion Request