Planning

Subscribe to Planning via RSS

by William W. Abbott and Robert T. Yamachika

Stolman v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 916, reaffirms the California rule that the granting of a variance, even in a charter city, is the exception rather than the rule. The case involves a longstanding non-conforming use; a gas station located in a residential neighborhood. The station had been at the location in question since 1922. It became non-conforming in 1925 when the area was zoned and annexed to the City of Los Angeles.
Continue Reading The Court of Appeal Affirms Once Again High Legal Standard Required for Variances

by William W. Abbott and Robert T. Yamachika

The Governor recently signed AB 2370 which amends portions of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (“LAFCo law”). This legislation takes effect on January 1, 2003, but does not apply to changes of organization or reorganization initiated prior to January 1, 2003. In a nutshell, AB 2370 prohibits local agency formation commissions (“LAFCos”) from approving a change of organization or reorganization or a change in the sphere of influence of a local government agency that would result in the annexation to cities or special districts, land that is subject to a farmland security zone (“FSZ”) contract or Williamson Act contract except under specified conditions. Thus, the net effect of the legislation is to further protect contracted lands from conversion to urban type uses.
Continue Reading Analysis of AB 2370 New Legislation Regarding LAFCos and Williamson Act Lands (Chap. 614, Stats. 2002)

by William W. Abbott and William V.W. Moore

In 2002 the Legislature amended the state zoning law in furtherance of its stated interest in creating housing opportunities. The first (AB 2292, Dutra) adds Government Code section 65863 and deals with “no-net-loss” of residential densities while the second (AB 1866, Wright) refines the state density bonus law. (Gov. Code § 65915.)
Continue Reading State Housing Objectives Move Forward in Year 2002 Revisions to the State Zoning Law

by Diane G. Kindermann and Robert T. Yamachika

In a recent Proposition 218 case, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Salinas (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1351, the Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District held that a “storm water drainage fee” was illegally imposed by the City of Salinas. The plaintiff, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (“HJTA”) contended that the storm drainage fee imposed by the City of Salinas was a “property-related” fee requiring voter approval. HJTA’s arguments were based on Proposition 218, the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act,” which was passed by the California voters in 1996. Proposition 218 added article XIII D, section 6(c) to the California Constitution, requiring notice for a public hearing and a vote for a proposed property-related fee or charge. If a majority of the affected property owners or two-thirds of the electorate in the affected area do not approve the fee, it may not be imposed.
Continue Reading Storm Drainage Fees are Property-Related Fees Subject to Proposition 218 Requirements