Planning

Subscribe to Planning via RSS

By Janell M. Bogue

A California appellate court recently addressed the approval of yet another Wal-Mart Superstore, this time in the City of Stockton (“City”). In Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton (November 28, 2007) 2007 Cal.App.LEXIS 1960, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District directed the trial court to set aside the approvals for a 200,000 plus square foot Wal-Mart, which would have been located in Spanos Park West (“Park”). The court held that a letter from the City’s Community Development Director (“Director”) was not an approval by a public agency. Since there was no approval by a public agency, the notice of exemption (“NOE”) was not valid and the short 35-day statute of limitations could not apply.
Continue Reading Invalid Approval Based on Lack of Legal Authority Leads to Invalid Notice of Exemption and Long Statute of Limitations for Challenged Wal-Mart

By Janell M. Bogue

The California Supreme Court’s decision in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova addressed the sufficiency of future water supplies for a long-term, large scale development. In the case of Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles, the Second Appellate District determined that an EIR for a long-term project met the requirements discussed in the Vineyard case.
Continue Reading Paper Water Revisited: Second Appellate District Applies the Principles of Vineyard

In the recent case City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern (August 10, 2007) 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62323, the United States District Court for the Central District of California held that an initiative ordinance in Kern County approved by the voters which had the effect of banning the land application of biosolids was unconstitutional.
Continue Reading The Sludge is Here to Stay: City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern

By Cori M. Badgley and William W. Abbott

In 2004, SB 1818 amended section 65915 of the Government Code, pertaining to the density bonus law. The purpose of SB 1818 was to encourage developers to build affordable housing by requiring local governments to provide incentives to do so. There was confusion in understanding the new provisions in Government Code section 65915 and the legislature clarified the density bonus law a year later with the enactment of SB 435. This year, the First Appellate District Court of Appeal heard the first case interpreting the amendments of SB 1818.
Continue Reading Density Bonus Law Update: An Overview of the Law and A Look at the First Case to Interpret the 2004 Amendments

By Cori Badgley and Kate Hart

“When is a project consistent with a general plan?” continues to be a question faced by local governments, developers, environmental advocates, and of course, the courts. A recent case out of Solano County, Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (August 28, 2007) 2007 Cal.App.LEXIS 1424, illustrates the important role the drafters of the general plan play in establishing the consistency parameters for the projects that follow.
Continue Reading Flexible General Plan Leads to Flexible Consistency

By Kate J. Hart and Brian Hoffman

On June 7, 2007, the California Supreme Court addressed head on the issue of whether or not cities may use their planning and zoning powers to directly impact economic competition. The case is Adrian Hernandez v. City of Hanford (June 7, 2007) 2007 Cal.Lexis 5586. This case affirms the ability of cities to impact economic competition in a direct and intended manner because it allows just such an impact so long as the primary purpose of the zoning action is to achieve a valid public purpose and not simply to serve an impermissible anticompetitive private purpose.
Continue Reading Zoning, Business Competition and Public Purposes

By Leslie Walker and Joel Ellinwood, AICP

Establishing estoppel against the government in land use matters requires additional findings not required against a private party. In Feduniak v. California Coastal Commission (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1346, two Pebble Beach landowners found out exactly how difficult that task can be.
Continue Reading The Difficulty in Establishing Estoppel Against A Public Agency

By Cori Badgley and William W. Abbott

After the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, public entities shifted funding strategies to backfill for the loss of property tax revenue. Proposition 13, codified as article XIII A of the California Constitution, provided that state and local governments are prohibited from imposing special taxes unless the tax is approved by a “two-thirds vote of the qualified electors.” Article XIII A forced the courts to wrestle with the question of how to define special tax as compared to a regulatory fee. Early cases addressed section 4 of article XIII A, which concerned local governments. It was not until 1997 that the California Supreme Court had the opportunity to address the distinction between special taxes and regulatory fees in the context of state agencies. This article summarizes the evolution of the fine line between regulatory fees and special taxes.
Continue Reading Regulatory Fees After Proposition 13: An Update

By William W. Abbott
Citing the book “Exactions and Impact Fees in California”, the Third Appellate District ruled that the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, §§ 66410 et seq.) 90-day statute of limitations trumped the longer Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, §§ 66000 et seq.) timeline when reviewing a legal challenge to a subdivision map denial by the City of Chico. The case is Thomas Fogarty v. City of Chico (March 12, 2007) 2007 Cal.App.Lexis 339.
Continue Reading Appellate Court Cites Exactions and Impact Fees Book