Planning

Subscribe to Planning via RSS

By Leslie Z. Walker

According to Las Lomas Land Co., LLC v. City of Los Angeles (Sept. 17, 2009, B213637) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the long standing rule that CEQA does not apply to projects rejected or disapproved by a public agency, allows a public agency to reject a project before completing or considering the EIR. In Las Lomas, the Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District made clear that a city may stop environmental review mid-stream and reject a project without awaiting the completion of a final EIR. While this holding may avoid wasting time and money on an EIR for a dead-on-arrival project, it will also make it harder for projects to stay in play until the entire environmental document is complete.
Continue Reading CEQA Does Not Apply to Project Disapproval, Even if the EIR is Underway

By William W. Abbott

Readers may remember our earlier account of the first State of California planned community, Durham, in Butte County, started in 1913. Apparently pleased with the perceived success in Durham, the State Land Settlement Board embraced a more ambitious goal, this time an 8,000 acre community to be located in the community of Delhi, in Merced County. On the heels of World War I, the legislature expanded the program to specifically serve returning veterans.
Continue Reading An Historic Tale of Two Towns: The State of California as a Planner, Subdivider and Developer Part II

By William W. Abbott

The Building Industry Association (“BIA”) scored a major success with AB 333, which protects many tentative maps by tacking on an additional statutory life jacket of 24 months. Chapter 18, Statutes of 2009 operates as follows.

Tentative subdivision maps scheduled to expire before January 1, 2012, are statutorily extended by 24 months. The new extension authorization is in addition to those already provided for by law., listed below:…
Continue Reading How Many Lawyers Does it Take to Extend a Tentative Map?

By Cori Badgley

The Attorney General’s Office declared in a press release on June 24, 2009 that it intervened in a suit against the City of Pleasanton to remove the City’s “draconian and illegal” housing cap. The housing cap, which was instituted in 1996 through Measure GG, limits housing to 29,000 units throughout the City. The City can only accommodate another 2,000 units, if the housing cap remains in place. According to the Attorney General, the job growth over the past 10 years has nearly doubled from 31,683 to more than 58,000, while the available housing has only increased by 7,000 units. The draft General Plan Update predicts the creation of 45,000 more jobs over the next 15 years. In addition to not meeting the City’s fair share regional housing needs, the Attorney General asserts that the housing cap will lead to increased traffic congestion, urban sprawl, greenhouse gas emissions and an increased dependence on foreign oil. As the case progresses, Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will provide further updates.
Continue Reading Attorney General Sues Pleasanton Over Illegal Housing Cap

The budget conference committee has proposed suspending Williamson Act subsidies for one year. For more information, see Budget Committee Highlights and letter from the California Association of Counties and Regional Council of Rural Counties. Please check back for updates on this proposal.
Continue Reading Senate Committee Proposes Suspending Williamson Act Relief

Have you participated in an outstanding planning project in the last year? Do you know someone who should be recognized for their leadership in planning? Nominate a project or person for one of the award categories below by Monday, April 6, 2009.
Continue Reading Less Than Two Weeks Left to Submit Your Application for the Sacramento Valley Section APA Awards

By William W. Abbott

We all are familiar with the State of California in its role in land planning and development as the uber regulator. But if you turn back the hands of time immediately before World War I, a different picture emerges; that of land developer.
Continue Reading An Historic Tale of Two Towns: The State of California as a Planner and Subdivider, Part I

By Cori M. Badgley and Nathan Jones

In Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 229, a developer asserted that a temporary regulatory taking occurred when the County of Santa Cruz (“County”) improperly and unlawfully delayed granting a ministerial permit for electricity. After extensively analyzing the various regulatory takings tests, the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, held that no regulatory taking had occurred.
Continue Reading Delay in Granting Ministerial Electrical Permit is Not a Regulatory Taking

By William W. Abbott and Nathan Jones

According to leading lifestyle magazines, the status question is no longer: who is your architect, but: who is your land use attorney? And if you want to build your dream house along the coast, your attorney’s telephone number needs to be on your cell phone’s speed dial.
Continue Reading Dream Home Checklist: Architect, Contractor, Land Use Attorney

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