Published on:

by

by Matthew Hinks
The California Legislature and the courts have recognized that challenges to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), if allowed to drag on, would impede the decisions of public agencies regarding land use. For this reason, CEQA imposes very short limitations periods and requires CEQA cases be given priority in both the trial courts and the courts of appeal.

But in a potentially troubling new case, the California Court of Appeal explicitly blessed the type of unreasonable litigation delay the Legislature protected against in enacting CEQA.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

By Matthew Hinks
May a property owner who sells property to a non-governmental entity as part of a government redevelopment project under the threat of eminent domain transfer the tax base of the original property to replacement property? Not on the record presented by the plaintiff in Duea v. County of San Diego, 204 Cal. App. 4th 691 (2012).
Continue reading

Published on:

by

By Matthew Hinks
A trial court’s order granting the motion of the City of Lake Forest for a preliminary injunction against the operations of a medical marijuana dispensary has gone — well — “up in smoke”. Orange County Superior Court Judge Chafee had ruled that the city’s zoning ordinances, which did not recognize dispensaries as a permitted use and expressly prohibited unpermitted uses, established a complete ban against medical marijuana dispensaries justifying preliminary injunctive relief. The Court of Appeal in City of Lake Forest v. Evergreen Holisitc Collective, 203 Cal. App. 4th 1413 (2012), disagreed and reversed that decision.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

By Matthew Hinks
In an earlier article on the California Land Use Blog, I wrote about the recent decision in Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente, 201 Cal.App.4th 1256 (2011), in which the court of appeal affirmed in large part a verdict in favor of a developer granting a writ of mandate and awarding damages as a result of a finding of a partial regulatory taking given what the court viewed as the “spot-zoning” of plaintiff’s property. I noted there that the trial court conducted its proceedings in two phases: the writ of mandate phase and the damages trial on the inverse condemnation claim. I also noted that the trial court issued the writ of mandate while the damages claim remained pending and before a final judgment was entered.

Though the Avenida San Juan Partnership court did not discuss this aspect of the case, I mentioned that trial courts are often reluctant to issue writs of mandate before a final judgment is entered. This can have a dramatic impact on a developer’s case against a local agency or city.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

By Matthew Hinks
In most instances, causes of action for inverse condemnation and regulatory takings in California are governed by the 5-year statute of limitations of Civil Procedure Code §§ 318 and 319. Preemption claims are governed by the 3-year statute of limitations of Civil Procedure Code § 338(a). Section 1983 claims in California state courts are governed by the 2-year personal injury statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. However, according to the court in Aiuto v. City and County of San Francisco, 201 Cal. App. 4th 1347 (2011), where such claims are brought in connection with a facial challenge to a local ordinance or administrative action enacted or taken pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, the 90-day statute of limitations of Government Code § 66499.37 applies.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

by Matthew Hinks
Court judgments finding a regulatory taking are relatively rare. So too are decisions upholding the oft-heard complaint of “spot zoning”. In the recent case of Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente, 201 Cal.App.4th 1256 (2011), the court (and the plaintiff) hit the daily double.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Ben Reznik
In an attempt to appease a well-heeled group of neighbors in Benedict Canyon who want to stop one particular project, the City of Los Angeles has adopted a new interpretation of its municipal code which will result in more than $1 billion worth of construction being delayed into 2013. This equates to the loss of several thousand jobs this year.

For the particulars, read my op-ed column from this week’s Los Angeles Business Journal, reprinted with permission below.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Ben Reznik and Sheri Bonstelle
In a blow to the more than 400 redevelopment agencies in California, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion today upholding the constitutionality of AB1X26, the Dissolution Bill and finding AB1X27, the Pay for Continuation Bill, unconstitutional in the California Redevelopment Agencies v. Matosantos case.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Neill Brower
The Fourth District of the California Court of Appeal recently ruled that the California State University system could not use budgetary uncertainty as a basis for determining the feasibility of mitigation for off-campus impacts. In City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, 2011 DJDAR 17803, filed on December 13, the court upheld a broad-based challenge to the EIR for the San Diego State University Master Plan.

Among other things, the EIR claimed that the University could not feasibly mitigate project-related traffic impacts that would occur off-campus. Consistent with mitigation measures in the EIR, the resolution approving the project and certifying the EIR required the University to request from the State legislature the necessary funding for the University’s fair share of off-campus traffic- and transit-related improvements. The resolution also stated that because the University ultimately relied on funding from the State legislature, the University could not guarantee the allocation of sufficient funds or the timing of that allocation, nor could the University guarantee that the local agencies would fund the measures for which those agencies were responsible. Nevertheless, the resolution directed the Chancellor of the University to proceed with the project even if the legislature allocated insufficient funds for mitigation, finding that due to the various funding uncertainties, the off-campus traffic impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, but “are necessarily outweighed by the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by [the University].”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Legislative Elimination of Redevelopment Agencies
As part of its 2011 – 2012 budget proposal, the California Governor’s Office proposed permanently shutting down local redevelopment agencies to free up $1.7 billion of tax increments to apply to the State’s budget deficit. The monies were slated to help fund schools, public safety and transit districts. On June 28, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB1X26 (the “Dissolution Bill”) and AB1X27 (the “Pay for Continuation Bill”) into law. The Dissolution Bill would permanently eliminate redevelopment agencies by October 1, 2011. The Pay for Continuation Bill allows redevelopment agencies to continue their existence and operation if the city or county that created the redevelopment agency commits to making annual payments to special funds administered by the county auditor controller by November 1, 2011.

Ensuing Litigation
In response to the passage of the Dissolution Bill and the Pay for Continuation Bill (the “Bills”), on July 15, 2011, the California Redevelopment Association, League of California Cities, City of Union City and the City of San Jose (collectively, “CRA”) filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate to the California Supreme Court challenging the Legislature’s adoption of the Bills and seeking an immediate stay of the Bills pending the outcome of the litigation.
Continue reading