Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin Development-City recants initial approval of development plan in favor of preserving open space Developers claim decision cost them millions, appeal under Fee Act Citation: Fogarty v. City of Chico, 2007 WL 734861 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2007) CALIFORNIA (03/12/07)-Fogarty and other developers applied to the city of Chico to develop a subdivision called Oak Valley. The original plan called for 80 to 160 residential units to be built on land known identified as Lot Q. The city's planning board initially approved the development, but community objectors appealed the decision to the city council. The city council made public its intention to reduce the maximum number of allowable residences on Lot Q to 80, but otherwise approve the project. After a public hearing, however, the city council voted to merge the boundaries of Lot Q with another lot and prohibit residential development on the new lot. The city council stated that this action was to diminish the aesthetic impact that development would have in Oak Valley and to preserve Lot Q as an open space. Lot Q had a fair-market value of $17 million if it was allowed to be developed according to its zoning classmcation, which was low den- sity residential. Under the classmcation, there could be no more than tvvo residential units per acre. The decision of the city council clearly reduced the number of residential units allowable-by disallowing de- velopment altogether although it was permitted in the zone-so Fogarty petitioned the court for review. Under the Subdivision Map Act, an aggrieved party could appeal a decision related to subdivision within 90 days of the contested action. Fogarty did not serve notice of his complaint until after that time lim- it had expired, but he claimed that his complaint was valid under the :Mitigation Fee Act, which had a 180-day limitation period for appeals. Under the Fee Act, Fogarty's appeal was timely. The lower court dismissed Fogarty's appeal as time-barred, finding that the Map Act controlled the case. Fogarty appealed. Decision: Affumed. The appeals court had to conduct a de novo review of the case, meaning it had to look at the facts of the case as if they were being pre- sented for the first time. The case turned on whether the Map of Fee Act applied to Fogarty's appeal. The relevant part of the Map Act stated that "Any action...to at- tack...the decision of [aJ...legislative body concerning a subdivision...or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition at- tached thereto" had to be made within 90 days. In contrast, the Fee Act 8 172