Planning

Subscribe to Planning via RSS

By Glen Hansen

In Pinnacle Museum TowerAssn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (UC), LLC (D055422, July 30, 2010), 2010 Cal.App. LEXIS 1261, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that an arbitration provision in a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R’s) recorded by a condominium project developer did not constitute an “agreement” sufficient to waive the constitutional right to jury trial for construction defect claims brought by the homeowners association against the developer.Continue Reading Arbitration Clause in Condominium Project CC&Rs Unenforceable in Construction Defects Action by Homeowners’ Association against Developer

Use of redevelopment funds by a city formed non-profit to acquire and develop school administrative buildings and a senior housing project with units reserved for 16 percent low and very moderate income residents was a valid use of redevelopment funds and did not require an Article XXXIV voter approval.
Continue Reading Article XXXIV Voter Requirements Inapplicable to Senior Housing Project Owned by a City Formed Non-Profit Public Benefit Corporation

In the first ever appellate court decision regarding CEQA and climate change, the First District Court of Appeal held the future development of a plan for greenhouse gas mitigation constitutes deferred mitigation. The Court also found the project description inadequate for failure to adequately describe whether the project would result in the refinery processing heavier crude because the EIR was internally inconsistent as well as inconsistent with other documents discussing the project.
Continue Reading 898,000 Metric Tons of Unmitigated CO2: Prime Conditions for the First Appellate Court Decision on CEQA and Climate Change

An appellate court sets aside a newly adopted general plan on grounds of incompatibility with the State Aeronautics Act, and on the basis of failure to consider a lower growth alternative in the EIR.

It has long been said that the general plan is the constitution for development and growth. In reality, the general plan has, on a selected basis, been subverted to other special planning purposes such as coastal planning, preservation of San Francisco Bay and Lake Tahoe and, as in the subject to this article, airport planning.
Continue Reading City’s New General Plan is not Cleared for Take-off, Returns to Base and is Grounded: Court Sets Aside Watsonville General Plan for Non Compliance with State Aeronautical Act and CEQA Requirements

In the second time in two months, the California Supreme Court announced that once a Notice of Exemption (“NOE”) for a project is filed, the applicable statute of limitations is 35 days – regardless of the circumstances surrounding the NOE. On April 1, 2010, the Court held that a citizens’ suit challenging a project under the California Environmental Quality Act was barred by the 35-day statute of limitations contained in Public Resources Code section 21167 subdivision (d) because the City of Stockton had filed a facially valid NOE.
Continue Reading No Fooling: A Facially Valid NOE Triggers a 35-Day Statute of Limitations

By Leslie Z. Walker

Today, February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law filed the Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines addressing greenhouse gas emissions (“Amendments”) with the Secretary of State. The Amendments require the quantification and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. (For more information about the Amendments, see OPR Finalizes Proposed CEQA Guidelines and Transmits Them to Resources Agency and CEQA Guidelines on Greenhouse Gases One Step Closer to Law.) The Amendments will become effective on March 18, 2010. Lead agencies should consult Guidelines section 15007 to determine when the Amendments apply to the agency’s actions.
Continue Reading 30 Days Left: CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Become Law on March 18, 2010

By Leslie Z. Walker

A coalition of plastic bag producers avoided, at least for the moment, a major blow to business by using the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) to delay implementation of an environmental law banning the use of plastic bags in the city of Manhattan Beach.
Continue Reading Paper or Plastic? Public Right Exception Allows Plastic Bag Producers to Challenge Negative Declaration for Environmental Ordinance

By Cori Badgley

Under Proposition 218 (Cal. Const. art. XIII D), special assessments shall not “exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on a parcel.” The courts have divided this into two general inquiries: 1) is a special benefit conferred by the improvement to be built through the assessment?; and 2) is the assessment proportional? In Town of Tiburon v. Bonander (2009) ____ Cal.App.4th ____, the court answered yes to the first question, but found that the division of costs was not proportional under Proposition 218.
Continue Reading Prop. 218 Proportionality Rule Relates to Special Benefits, Not Construction Costs