Zoning

Subscribe to Zoning via RSS

In Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill (August 5, 2011, H035519) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the city did not spot zone Arcadia’s property and did not violate Arcadia’s equal protection rights by placing a measure on the ballot which amended the city’s zoning code to prohibit extensive development on Arcadia’s property.
Continue Reading Growth Measure Survives Spot Zoning and Equal Protection Challenge in an “As Applied” Challenge

By now, most CEQA practitioners have faced the problem of what to do when a project opponent submits the Attorney General’s 18-page list of potential greenhouse gas mitigation measures, suggesting the measures might be appropriate for the project at issue. On June 30, 2011, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that the lead agency is not necessarily required to explain why each of the proposed measures is inappropriate for the specific project.
Continue Reading Lead Agencies Are Not Always Required to Explain Why Every Proposed Mitigation Measure is Infeasible

The Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District found substantial evidence of a fair argument that a Target development project would have a significant environmental impact by disturbing contaminated soil, but rejected challenges based on air pollution and greenhouse gas impacts.
Continue Reading Implicit Approval of Using AB 32 Reduction Goals to Establish GHG Thresholds

Please join William W. Abbott and Steven Rudolph on August 18, 2011 from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM for an in depth look at the art of crafting development agreements in their UC Davis Extension course, Vested Rights, Vesting Maps and Development Agreements.
Continue Reading Vested Rights Class at UC Davis Extension August 18, 2011

By Cori M. Badgley

The court in Chawanakee Unified School District v. County of Madera (2011, No. F059382) ____ Cal.App.4th ____ faced the difficult task of interpreting an amendment to the School Facilities Act and how it interacts with CEQA as an issue of first impression. The specific provision at issue restricts the “methods of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities” to the fees provided in the School Facilities Act. (Gov. Code, § 65996(a).) The court held that although this provision obviated the need to discuss direct impacts on school facilities in the CEQA document, the provision did not apply to indirect impacts, such as traffic or construction.Continue Reading The Devil is in the Details… At Least When it Comes to Interpreting the School Facilities Act

Legal challenges for non compliance with state affordable housing laws governed by relatively short statute of limitations periods.
Continue Reading Legal Challenges to Land Use Decisions Governed By Strict Statutes Of Limitation, Including Those Based Upon Non Compliance with the Housing Element Requirements

This case involved a city program to have property owners with property near the airport apply to voluntarily sell their properties to the city. After acquiring the properties, the city demolished all buildings and left the land vacant to mitigate for incompatible residential dwellings near the airport. Certain property owners that chose not to sell their properties sued the city on the grounds that its actions amounted to a taking. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the program was voluntary and the property owners could not be compensated for the decrease in the property value.
Continue Reading That’s the Way the Buildings Crumble: City’s Purchase and Demolition of Adjacent Buildings is Not a Taking