Statute of Limitations Runs Out in Housing Element Dispute

A unanimous California Supreme Court has upheld a trial court's decision to reject a challenge to a Proposition 218 election for a storm drainage fee, thus reversing a decision by First District Court of Appeal. 

The state high court ruled the Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District maintained the requisite level of voting secrecy in accordance with the 1996 "Right to Vote on Taxes Initiative," which requires voter approval for certain local fees.

Use of redevelopment funds by a city-formed nonprofit organization to develop school administrative buildings and a housing project with units reserved for low- and very low-income residents was valid and did not require voter approval, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. 

In reaching its decision, the court had to interpret the various restrictions in redevelopment law as well as Article 34 of the state constitution.  

Article 34 as part of the California Constitution, adopted by voters in 1950, had the effect of requiring voter approval of "low rent housing projects." Over time, the Legislature has codified various interpretations of Article 34, excluding from the voter approval process certain types of affordable projects. On a parallel path, the Legislature has modified redevelopment law to ensure that cities spend a certain amount of their tax increments on affordable housing. 

The Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed a judgment following a jury verdict that found that a homeowners association complied with the California Solar Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 714) when it denied the application of property owners to install solar panels on a slope adjacent to their residence.

In the case of West Chandler Boulevard Neighborhood Association v. City of Los Angeles, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, considered the validity of the City of Los Angeles' grant of a conditional use permit, height variance and parking variance to a Chabad of North Hollywood, which was operating a synagogue in a residential neighborhood within the city. 

In the case of South Orange County Wastewater Authority v. City of Dana Point (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 1604 ("South Orange"), the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District was asked to order an environmental impact report (EIR) be prepared to assess the impact on the environment of a proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Court of Appeal declined to order such an EIR.

As the state's public disclosure statute, the California Environmental Quality Act directs lead agencies to disclose the likely impacts associated with agency approval of projects. And while legal caution dictates that more disclosure is preferable to less disclosure, lead agencies have to recognize that there are two notable exceptions to this practice: information relating to cultural resources, as outlined in Government Code section 6254, CEQA Guidelines section 15120(d), and trade secrets, per CEQA Guidelines section 15120(d).

In a feat of chronological gymnastics regarding a proposed development in the City of Napa, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held that a Notice of Determination posted over the course of 31 calendar days was not posted long enough to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act's requirement that it be posted for 30 days. 

This case involved the perfect storm of events resulting in the flooding of the plaintiffs' properties and an ensuing legal tempest. Plaintiffs sued the county in court claiming that the flooding was a result of county's failure to maintain a county road, from which the runoff spilled. Plaintiff claimed that the county's neglect of the road constituted a taking and inverse condemnation. In Gutierrez v. County of San Bernardino, the Fourth District Court of Appeals grappled with the application of the "reasonableness" takings test that applies to flood control projects.

In the ongoing billboard wars that have taken place up and down the state in recent years, the advertisers have won the latest legal battle. 

In Hill v. San Jose Family Housing Partners, the Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District held: (1) that a written easement for a billboard was enforceable, even if the billboard was constructed in an illegal manner; and (2) that the servient owners of a development that unreasonably interfered with the visibility of the billboard could owe the billboard owner damages for lost profits.

As with most things in life, one person's gain is another person's loss, and public-private partnerships are not exempt from these types of tradeoffs. To the state engineers and their representative union, the contracting out to private engineering firms of engineering services traditionally performed by Caltrans engineering staff represents one of those zero-sum games. This becomes the backdrop to a challenge to the Phase II improvement work on Doyle Drive, the highway approach to the southern terminus of the Golden Gate Bridge.

Among the many counterintuitive theories that Jane Jacobs dispensed was that of the evils of parks: if designed and situated poorly, they could turn into vast dead spaces where unsavory characters could congregate and mischief could ensure. She preferred, instead, smaller, more intimate spaces with close connections to their communities. 

If Jacobs loved Washington Square Park, then she most likely would have swooned over "parklets." 

In order to avoid having your takings claim dismissed, your timing must be just right. Unfortunately for Colony Cove Properties, LLC, the timing was off, and its multifaceted takings claim was rejected by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal for being both too late to challenge a rent control ordinance and too early to challenge how a city applied its ordinance.