Zoning

Subscribe to Zoning via RSS

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

By Janell M. Bogue

Recently, the Third Appellate District held that the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (“HCP”) was properly certified by the City of Sacramento and Sutter County (“City and County”) under CEQA and that the Department of Fish and Game (“DFG”) complied with the California Endangered Species Act (“CESA”) in issuing its incidental take permits. The case is Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018.
Continue Reading HCPs and Hawks and Snakes…Oh My!

By Rob Hofmann

Cultural artifacts and Native American remains receive different levels of protection under state and federal law. This article discusses the different laws and recent changes brought about by the passage of AB 2641.
Continue Reading Effective January 1, 2007, the California Legislature expands landowners’ obligation to repatriate Native American remains and associated cultural artifacts

By Elias E. Guzman
A court recently held in Peak Investments v. South Peak Homeowners Association, Inc. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1363, that the Davis-Stirling Act (“Act”) requires that a proposed CC&Rs amendment must be approved by a simple majority of the HOA members before a court may properly reduce the percentage of votes set by the CC&Rs.
Continue Reading Court Shuts Off Civil Code §1356 Safety Valve…Well, Halfway At Least

By Joel Ellinwood, AICP
Recognizing that the often seemingly interminable delay by local agencies in development permit processing drives up costs of providing housing and other desirable projects, the development industry succeeded in persuading the legislature to impose what at first glance appear to be strict timelines for the agency to approve or disapprove projects. The timelines are given teeth by provisions which may result in projects being “deemed approved” if the agency fails to act within the time provided. However, as the recent case of Mahon v. County of San Mateo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 812 (modified June 19, 2006) illustrates, the teeth don’t seem to have much bite…
Continue Reading Take Notice!

By William W. Abbott

So what happens if you host an election party, and not enough people vote for an assessment? According to the California Attorney General, a community service district is not obligated to provide road maintenance services and snow removal to an existing zone within the district if the voters reject an increase…

By Joel Ellinwood, AICP Although we are only entering the second quarter of 2006, it is safe to predict that the just published case of Branciforte Heights, LLC v. City of Santa Cruz (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 914 will be one of the top ten land use cases for the year. The decision includes discussion of critical issues for litigation of cases involving the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, § 66410 et seq.), the Quimby Act (the section of the Subdivision Map Act limiting park fees and dedications, Gov. Code, § 66477), the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, § 66000 et seq.), and the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civ. Code, § 1350 et seq.). Once again a court is required to parse the obtuse and conflicting statutory language adopted by the legislature to provide some semblance of clarity in these areas of California development law.
Continue Reading Branciforte Heights – Strong Bet for 2006 Top Ten Land Use Cases