Planning

Subscribe to Planning via RSS

By William W. Abbott

Orange Citizens for Parks and Recreation v. The Superior Court of Orange County (July 10, 2013, G047013) ___ Cal.App.4th ___.

While not exactly a Dan Brown novel, the most recent planning law case illustrates the resulting agony which follows imprecise record keeping as to the status of previously adopted planning and regulatory documents, and how they fit in with updated general plans and other land use requirements. Without retracing all the subtle nuanced facts, this case starts with the adoption of the 1973 Orange Park Acres Specific Plan. When the City Council adopted the plan, it included amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, nearly 40 years later, it was not clear as to what exactly those amendments were, a matter of some consequence in a later land use dispute. Over time, the City dropped the word “specific” from the plan document. The Orange Park plan was amended in later years, and was incorporated in the local general plan in 1989 and again in 2010 in the updated general plan. The descriptions of the planning document, and well as reference to the applicable land use standards varied overtime. As planners, developers, commissioners and elected officials come and go, an inconsistent understanding of the document over time is hardly surprising.Continue Reading Now You See It, Now You Don’t: The Mystery Of The Orange Park Acres Specific Plan.

By William W. Abbott

Save Panoche Valley v. San Benito County (June 25, 2013, H037599) ___ Cal.App.4th ___.

Famous for its bird sitings (http://www.audublog.org/?p=4155), Panoche Valley sits nestled between Interstate 5 and Highway 101 (http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/). I wager that few Californians have passed through this quiet terrain, and but for this court decision, would not know that this valley exists. Besides its limited number of residents and great diversity in bird species, Panoche Valley is also notable in that (1) it is exposed to high levels of solar radiation, and (2) it is bisected by a 230 kV transmission line. Just as no-good-deed-goes-unpunished, neither do conflicting environmental values resolve themselves without a CEQA lawsuit.Continue Reading Williamson Act Contract Cancellation For Solar Project Upheld Along With Companion Environmental Impact Report

By Glen C. Hansen

For nearly twenty years, Fifth Amendment takings challenges to adjudicative land-use exactions and permit conditions have been governed by the dual Supreme Court cases of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987),and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). In Nollan, the Court held that a government could, without paying the compensation, demand the easement as a condition for granting a development permit the government was entitled to deny, provided that the exaction would substantially advance the same government interest that would furnish a valid ground for denial of the permit. The Court further refined that requirement in Dolan, holding that an adjudicative exaction requiring dedication of private property must also be “‘roughly proportional’ . . . both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.” However, Nollan and Dolan involved the dedication of real property interests. In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, ___ U.S. ___, 2013 U.S. Lexis 4918 (2013), the Court held in a 5-4 decision that “the government’s demand for property from a land-use permit applicant must satisfy the requirements of Nollan and Dolan even when the government denies the permit and even when its demand is for money.” Continue Reading The U.S. Supreme Court’s Nollan/Dolan Jurisprudence Is Catching Up With The California Supreme Court in Ehrlich v. Culver City

By William W. Abbott

In California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose (June 6, 2013, H038563) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the City of San Jose adopted an inclusionary ordinance, requiring that new residential projects include units affordable to specified income ranges. Alternatively, the ordinance permitted the developer to pay an in lieu fee or dedicate land. The California Building Industry Association (“CBIA”) filed suit, challenging the validity of the ordinance on its face on the basis that the ordinance lacked any nexus to the deleterious effects of new residential development. CBIA did not allege that a compensable takings had occurred, but rather argued that the City lacked sufficient justification for the ordinance. The trial court agreed with CBIA and invalidated the ordinance. The City appealed.Continue Reading Appellate Court Reverses Trial Court Invalidation Of Local Inclusionary Ordinance; Remanded For Further Review

By Glen Hansen

In Freeny v. City of San Buenaventura (June 4, 2013, B240893) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held, in an action against a city and five city council members for compensatory and punitive damages for voting against an application for building permits and variances, that public employees’ tort immunity for legislative decision-making under Government Code sections 820.2, 821 and 821.2 applies even when that decision-making is also alleged to involve the making of misrepresentations motivated by actual fraud, corruption or actual malice.Continue Reading Public Officials Are Immune From Tort Liability For Legislative Actions Involving Misrepresentations That Are Motivated By Fraud, Corruption Or Actual Malice.

By William W. Abbott

Three recent cases land at the periphery of the zone of interest for land use practitioners. While not warranting an exhaustive review, these decisions can and should be slated away for potential future use.Continue Reading A Trifecta Of Outliers: Three Cases On The Outer Edges Of Land Use And Environmental Practice

By William W. Abbott

County of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (March 14, 2013, B236732) ___Cal.App.4th ___. The latest illustration of intergovernmental non-cooperation examines the circumstances in which cities can route sewer lines through county rights of way, all without county approval. The facts involve the City of Los Angeles upgrading the capacity of its line to its Hyperion Treatment Plant in Playa Del Rey. Serving the coastal portions of the City, the existing 48 inch line was installed in 1958 but lacked the capacity to serve major storm events. The City studied various options for installing a new 54 inch diameter line. Most of the routing would take place in City streets, but one route involved use of public streets and a public parking lot located in the jurisdiction of the County. For environmental reasons, the City ultimately approved the alignment which involved County streets. The County filed a petition for writ of mandate, alleging violations of the Public Utilities Code and CEQA. The trial court rejected the CEQA claim, but granted relief pursuant to the Public Utilities Code claims, effectively holding that County approval was required. The City appealed. The appellate court reversed the trial court.Continue Reading City May Install Sewer Line in County Right Of Way Without County Permission

By William W. Abbott

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2013, No. 11-15588) ___F.3d ___.

As part of its overall regulatory code, the City of Gilbert, Arizona enacted various sign regulations. The regulations generally require a City issued sign permit unless the sign qualifies under one of nineteen different exceptions. Three of the nineteen exceptions involved (1) temporary directional signs for a qualifying event, (2) political signs and (3) ideological signs. Temporary directional signs subject to the exemption were subject to specific limitations not applicable to political and ideological signs including size, location (excluded from public right of way), and duration (same day only).Continue Reading Born (again) Under a Bad Sign: Ninth Circuit Upholds Ordinance Restricting Duration, Location, Quantity, And Size Of Directional Signs for Church Services

By William W. Abbott

Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (November 29, 2012, S187243) ___Cal.4th ___. In a 6 to 1 decision, the California Supreme Court concluded that mobilehome park conversions subject to Government Code section 66427.5 of the Subdivision Map Act are also subject to the Coastal Act and Mello Act (the latter for affordable housing in the Coastal zone.) In 1991, the Legislature enacted Government Code section 66427.5. This new code section set forth the particular determinations under the Subdivision Map Act when local government was processing a subdivision map application for conversion of a rental park to an owner occupied park and was intended to narrow the scope of local government inquiry which might otherwise be permitted by the Subdivision Map Act when processing other types of proposed subdivisions. The 1991 legislation included language which stated, in conjunction with local government review of the tentative map, that “The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section.”Continue Reading Mobilehome Park Conversions Trigger Coastal and Mello Act Compliance Requirements