By William W. Abbott

In order to promote more logical urban development pattern, the extension of city services and to avoid underserved populations surrounded by more intense development typically with higher level of services, the legislature has periodically tinkered with the island annexation provisions. In 2000, the legislature created a streamlining provision for unincorporated islands of 75 acres or less, subsequently increased to 150 acres. Pursuant to Government Code section 56375.3, local agency formation commissions (LAFCos) may exercise a more streamlined annexation approval process and can waive the protest proceeding if an annexation is initiated by a city, and the property consists of an island of less than 150 areas. In 2010, Senator Gloria McLeod requested an opinion from the California Attorney General regarding administration of this code section. In July of 2012, the Attorney General weighed in with a formal opinion. While these opinions are not binding on courts or agencies, they are normally afforded great weight in terms of statutory interpretation. In other words, best to pay attention.Continue Reading California Attorney General Opines On Streamlined Island Annexations

Appellate court affirms the decision of the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations denying exemption from paying prevailing wages for a seniors project in circumstances in which the developer utilized two sources of otherwise exempt funds.
Continue Reading A Combination of Otherwise Exempt Funding Sources Causes a Seniors Project to be Subject to Prevailing Wage Requirements

A selling property owner is not automatically entitled to carry forward an older property tax base to replacement property simply because the buyer is carrying out economic activity as part of a redevelopment plan.
Continue Reading Property Owner Fails to Establish Basis For Maintaining Older Property Tax Assessment Following Property Transfer

By William W. Abbott

Fraternity defeats City injunction request by reorganizing as a religious order.

In a surprising turn of events for City officials, the Delta Tau Chi fraternity, the single largest source of noise complaints in the City of Fresno, reorganized itself as a religious order last February. This conversion came about as a result of City officials filing a nuisance complaint and seeking a preliminary injunction. The fraternity quickly reorganized itself as a religious brotherhood, albeit one with unconventional practices. At the hearing on the preliminary injunction, the trial court judge, the Honorable Douglas Neidermeyer, expressed sympathy for the City’s concerns. However, the judge declined the City’s preliminary injunction request, ruling that under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the City was not likely to succeed on the merits. The judge’s order stated: “The law requires this court to have an open mind as to what constitutes bona fide religious practices. As the defendants have demonstrated in their opposition papers, the wilder side of Lutherans and the Amish, while not well known, are nevertheless well documented. This court cannot discriminate in favor of established more popular religions over those that are not.” Trial is set in August while the students are on summer break.Continue Reading Local Government Land Use News Update

Senate Bill 436 (SB 436) amends and adds provisions to the California Planning and Zoning Law regarding mitigation lands requiring state and local agencies to protect natural resources that are impacted by their own development projects and to require endowments for the protection of those protected lands. It also authorizes agencies to require endowments for mitigation lands set aside for private projects.
Continue Reading Legislative Update: Mitigation Chapter of Planning and Zoning Law is Amended and Expanded to Ensure the Proper Management of Protected Lands (SB 436)

According to the appellate court in this case, “an individual medical marijuana patient is not the proper party to challenge generally applicable zoning provisions because – whatever the contours of the right to engage in cooperate or collective medical marijuana activity (see e.g., § 11362.775) – the Legislature invested this right in cooperative and collective groups and entities, not individuals.” Therefore, the plaintiff had no standing to bring an action against the city.
Continue Reading No Matter How Compelling a Story, a Medical Marijuana Patient Lacks Standing to Sue City