Perkins Coie attorneys, including regular contributors to this report, recently presented the 29th Annual Land Use & Development Law Briefing in San Francisco, Palo Alto and Walnut Creek. The presentation focused on 2018 legal developments and trends in land use, affordable housing, CEQA, wetlands and endangered species. The final presentation in this year’s series is … Continue Reading
The Sixth District Court of Appeal invalidated a school district’s Level 1 development fee because the underlying fee study did not properly calculate anticipated growth and included the cost of hypothetical new schools that the district had no plans to build. Summerhill Winchester v Campbell Union School District, No. H043253 (6th Dist., Dec. 4, 2018). … Continue Reading
School impact fees for an apartment complex must be calculated based on the square footage of both the individual units and other space within the interior of the buildings, such as hallways and elevator shafts. 1901 First Street Owner v. Tustin Unified School District, 21 Cal. App. 5th 1186 (2018). School impact fees under Government … Continue Reading
Just over a year after the California Supreme Court strongly endorsed inclusionary housing ordinances, the Second District Court of Appeal upheld a city’s collection of in-lieu housing fees against a developer’s claim that the city failed to carry its burden of proving the fees were reasonably related to development impacts. 616 Croft Ave., LLC v. … Continue Reading
The California Court of Appeal yesterday lifted a stay it had imposed in a lawsuit by the California Building Industry Association challenging implementation of “Level 3” school facilities fees. Lifting the stay allows the California State Allocation Board to formally notify the Legislature that it is no longer apportioning State funds for school facilities. Receipt … Continue Reading
A Mello-Roos tax on new residential development to finance a wide variety of governmental services was a valid special tax, not a general tax to fund existing municipal services. Building Industry Association of the Bay Area v. City of San Ramon 4 Cal.App.5th 62 (2016) An analysis performed by the City of San Ramon showed … Continue Reading
A Sacramento Superior Court judge has issued a temporary restraining order barring the State Allocation Board from formally notifying the California Senate and Assembly that state funds for new school facility construction are no longer available. The order, issued yesterday, effectively blocks implementation of Level 3 school fees, which would otherwise have been triggered as … Continue Reading
In a move that could result in doubling developer fees overnight in more than 200 school districts, the State Allocation Board last night voted to formally notify the California Senate and Assembly that state funds for new school facility construction are no longer available. The decision, by a 6 to 4 vote, will enable school … Continue Reading
The California Building Industry Association has filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose, 61 Cal. 4th 435 (2015). In that decision, the California high court upheld San Jose’s affordable housing ordinance, rejecting … Continue Reading
The Fourth District Court of Appeal has upheld an order requiring refund of over $10 million in accumulated development impact fees because the City’s findings “were mere conclusions, not the specific findings required under the [Mitigation Fee] Act.” Walker v. City of San Clemente, No. G050552 (Fourth Dist., Aug. 28, 2015). Statutory Requirements. Under the … Continue Reading
The Building Industry Association of the Bay Area has filed a lawsuit in federal court in the Northern District of California challenging the City of Oakland’s recent adoption of a public art ordinance on constitutional grounds. The challenged Ordinance requires developers to install art works (worth at least 1/2% of the total cost of residential … Continue Reading
In a case closely watched by home builders, low-income housing advocates, and cities and counties throughout the state, the California Supreme Court has strongly endorsed inclusionary housing ordinances, ruling that they are legally permissible as long as it can be shown the ordinance is reasonably related to the public welfare. California Building Industry Association v. … Continue Reading
A water district is not subject to the same vesting rights as a local agency under the Subdivision Map Act. Thus, the Subdivision Map Act does not restrict a municipal utility district’s authority to require an easement as a condition of providing water service to a residential lot on a newly-subdivided parcel. Tarbet v. East … Continue Reading
While acknowledging that the City’s affordable housing ordinance was no longer enforceable under the Costa-Hawkins Act, an appellate court dismissed a challenge to a permit condition requiring compliance with the ordinance because the owner failed to seek timely review of the permit condition through administrative mandamus. City of Berkeley v. 1080 Delaware, LLC, 234 Cal.App.4th … Continue Reading
Perkins Coie attorneys — most of whom contribute regularly to this report — recently presented the 25th Annual Land Use & Development Law Breakfast Briefing in Palo Alto, San Francisco and Walnut Creek. The presentation focused on 2014 developments and trends in land use, affordable housing, school facilities financing, CEQA, real estate and environmental and resources … Continue Reading
The Northern District of California has struck down part of San Francisco’s rent control ordinance as an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment in Levin v. City and County of San Francisco, Dist. Court, ND California 2014, No. 3:14-cv-03352-CRB (N.D. Ca Oct 21, 2014). The case may have important implications for monetary exactions in local … Continue Reading
In an opinion on rehearing, the Second District Court of Appeal overturned a California Coastal Commission decision that a condition of a county-issued coastal development permit could not be eliminated by a second coastal development permit the county issued for the same project. Bowman v California Coastal Commission, No. B243015, Oct. 23, 2014. Focusing on … Continue Reading
“No taxation without representation” is a powerful rallying cry, but it’s not enough to justify an application for annexation of territory to a special district, according to recent court of appeal decision. City of Patterson v Turlock Irrigation District (5th Dist. F067629 June 25, 2014). The court held that there is no statutory authorization for expansion … Continue Reading
A landowner’s attack on a condition of approval of a development permit was barred by the landowner’s failure to contest the same condition when it was imposed on an earlier permit, according to a recent court of appeal decision. Bowman v California Coastal Commission, B243015 (2d Dist 2014). San Luis Obispo County issued a coastal … Continue Reading
A recent California Court of Appeal decision considered the argument that a county requiring property owners to dedicate an overflight easement as a condition to issuance of a building permit was an unconstitutional exaction. The court concluded that the owners could not establish a taking because they were unable to show that the government simply … Continue Reading
Under the Mitigation Fee Act, when a city imposes a fee, dedication, reservation or other exaction on a development project, the developer has the right to pay under protest, obtain the necessary project approvals and proceed with construction, while at the same time disputing the legality of the requirement. In Sterling Park v. City of … Continue Reading
The California Supreme Court has granted a petition by the California Building Industry Association for review of an appellate court’s decision upholding a San Jose affordable housing ordinance. The court of appeal found the ordinance to be a valid exercise of the City’s police powers, reversing a lower court ruling that the city had not … Continue Reading
A local agency may not condition the availability of a density bonus upon provision of more affordable housing than the minimum required under the State Density Bonus Law. Latinos Unidos Del Valle De Napa Y Solano v. County of Napa, No. A135094 (First District, July 11, 2013). California’s Density Bonus Law, Government Code § 65915, … Continue Reading
In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court expanded the reach of the requirement that there be a “nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the impacts of a proposed development and governmental conditions imposed on the development. Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. ___ (2013). The Court held that these requirements … Continue Reading
