On August 23, 2018, the California Supreme Court held, in City of Morgan Hill v. Bushey, __ Cal.4th __ (2018) (Case No. S243042), that a referendum petition to challenge a zoning ordinance amendment that would bring the ordinance into compliance with the county’s or city’s general plan is valid, even though such a referendum would temporarily leave in place zoning that does not comply with the general plan, at least if the local agency has other means to make the ordinance consistent with the plan. The Court reasoned that such a referendum simply keeps the underlying inconsistency in place for a certain time––until the local agency can make the zoning ordinance consistent with general plan.
On July 23, 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2017 (H.R. 1689). Sponsored by Wisconsin Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. and California Congresswoman Maxine Waters, the Act intends to address Kelo v. City of New London, the controversial 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision that affirmed the right of a city to use the power of eminent domain to take and transfer property from one private party to another for the “public purpose” of economic development.
On July 25, 2018, the Third District Court of Appeal published Nat’l Conference of Black Mayors v. Chico Community Publishing, Inc. , __ Cal.App.5th __ (2018) (Case No. C083956), a case of first impression addressing whether the Public Records Act allows an award of attorney fees to a requester who litigates against an officer of a public agency in a mandamus action the officer initiated to prevent the public agency from disclosing records the agency agreed to disclose.
Continue Reading California Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Defunct National Conference of Black Mayors and Controversial Former Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson in Novel Public Records Act Attorney Fee Litigation
On June 12, 2018, in County of Ventura v. City of Moorpark and Broad Beach Geologic Hazard Abatement District, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2018) (Case No. B282466), the Second District Court of Appeal published a decision addressing whether the California Environmental Quality Act’s broad definition of “project also applies to statutory exemptions, questions of state law preemption, the limits of a city’s contractual authority, and the abdication of a government entity’s police power. My partner, Art Coon, wrote about the CEQA issues here.
The harsh effects on property rights resulting from the California Coastal Act’s broad definition of “development” are on display again following the Second District Court of Appeal’s March 27, 2018 opinion, in Greenfield v. Mandalay Shores Community Association, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2018) (Case No.B281089), where the Court held that “[t]he decision to ban or regulate [short-term rentals] must be made by the City and Coastal Commission, not a homeowner’s association.”
On April 27, 2018, the California Attorney General published an opinion (No. 17-702) concluding that a City of Hollister resolution approving the execution of an agreement to sell real property for development, pursuant to an approved plan for disposing a dissolved redevelopment agency’s property, is not subject to referendum.
The question arose following the City’s adoption of a resolution authorizing its city manager to enter into a disposition and development agreement for the sale and development of real property that would implement the Long Range Property Management Plan approved by the oversight board and the state Department of Finance. (Interestingly, the resolution was adopted by the City Council rather than the Successor Agency, a separate legal entity charged with winding down and completing the activities of the former redevelopment agency). The project would consist of two buildings: one two-story, 9,000 square foot philanthropic center and new headquarters for the Community Foundation for San Benito County; and a second, three-story building with 8,000 to 11,000 square feet of ground floor commercial retail space and 14 to 22 condominiums.
On March 29, 2018, in 1901 First Street Owner, LLC v. Tustin Unified School District, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2018) (Case No. G054086), the Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed an important case of first impression regarding the question whether the square footage of interior space outside individual apartment units—i.e., interior common area—should be included in the calculation of Level 1 school impact fees. Interpreting the key provisions of the relevant school fee statutes, the Court of Appeal concluded that “assessable space” includes all interior common area.
In the year of the 25th anniversary of Groundhog Day, starring Bill Murray, about a weatherman named Phil Connors who finds himself repeatedly living the same frustrating day, a California court rejected yet another lawsuit by a medical marijuana dispensary to a city’s determination that dispensaries are not a valid local land use and, accordingly, ordering the dispensary to close. The Sixth District Court of Appeal opinion in J. Arthur Properties, II, LLC v. City of San Jose, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2018) (Case No. H042938), filed and published on March 19, 2018, calls to mind several quotable quotes from Groundhog Day, including this gem: “Am I upsetting you, Princess? You know, you want a prediction about the weather, you’re asking the wrong Phil. I’ll give you a winter prediction: It’s gonna be cold, it’s gonna be gray, and it’s gonna last you for the rest of your life.”
On March 5, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Knick v. Township of Scott (Case No. 17-647) to address the requirement, established in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 194-96 (1985), that landowners must first unsuccessfully seek compensation in state court before bringing a Fifth Amendment takings claim in federal court. No other category of plaintiffs desiring to vindicate their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is subject to this onerous requirement.
On February 21, 2018, in Save Lafayette v. City of Lafayette, __ Cal.5th __ (2018) (Case No. A149342), the First District Court of Appeal overturned the City of Lafayette’s decision to not place a referendum petition on the ballot to challenge a rezoning for a 44-unit single-family residential development because the referendum, if successful, would resurrect prior zoning that would be inconsistent with a recently amended general plan. (Ironically, the City has also been sued by a group that prefers a larger, 315-unit apartment project instead). According to the City, because the referendum is the power of the voters to approve or reject new laws, a successful referendum would cause the zoning to revert from “Single Family Residential” to “Administrative Professional Office,” thereby creating an inconsistency with the general plan’s residential land use designation, in violation of state law that requires zoning ordinances to be consistent with general plans.