My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01912
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1900-1999
>
pf_01912
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/20/2024 4:49:18 PM
Creation date
2/20/2024 4:37:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1912
Planning Files - Type
Zoning Text Amendment
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
154
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
In Georgia-Pacific Corporation V. California <br />Coastal Commission, 132 Cal. App. 3d 678, 699 (1982), the <br />court stated: "A regulatory body may constitutionally <br />require a dedication of property. in the interest of the <br />general welfare as a condition of preventing land <br />development. It does not act in eminent domain when it does <br />this, and the validity of the dedication requirement is not <br />dependent on a factual showing that the development has <br />created the need for it." However, the statute itself as in <br />the School Facilities Act (S5 659702 et seg.) can create a <br />more direct nexus (see McLain Western No. 1 v. County of San <br />tl Diego, 146 Cal. App. 3d 772 (1983)). d <br />A good review of the legal relationship needed in <br />subdivision or other type of land use exactions was set <br />forth by the federal appellate court in Parks v. Watson, 716 <br />F.2d 646 (9th Cir. ) (1983) , wherein the court stated: <br />A city allows a developer to subdivide land in <br />return for a contribution, typically of land for <br />streets within the subdivision or for a park or <br />school. Developer then challenged the requirement <br />as a taking without just compensation. At one <br />extreme, the older Illinois rule "permits an exac- <br />tion only if the 'need' for the facility being <br />financied is 'specifically and uniquely attribu- <br />table' to the subdivider's developer." Ellickson, <br />Suburban Growth Controls: An Economic and Legal <br />Analysis, 86 EAL L.J. 385, Ul 82 (1§T7) f Pioneer <br />Trust and Savings Bank v. Villa a of Mt. PProos22ct, <br />�1. 2d 375, 1�.E. 79 62 (19 l� ) . But <br />see Plote, Inc. v. Minnesota Alden Co., 96 Ill. <br />At t ie other extreme, Cali orn a requires <br />only that the exaction have some relationship to <br />the needs of the subdivision or to the increased <br />needs of the city', caused by the additional popula- <br />tion brought by the subdivision. Associated Home <br />Builders v. City of Walnut Creek, 4 Ca1.3d <br />640-641, 484 P.2d 606, 611-613 (1971). But there <br />is agreement among the states "thc,: the dedication <br />should have some reasonable relationship to the <br />needs created by the subdivision." Hall v. Cit <br />of West Jordan, 606 P.2d 217, 220 (Uta-i 1� <br />Footnote omitted). <br />The latest case stressing the rule that there only <br />be an indirect relationship between a prorosed exaction and <br />2A11 code references are to the Government Code of tie State <br />of California unless otherwise noted. <br />-9- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.