Blogs

Real Estate & Land Use, worms eye view of large commercial buildings

California Land Use & Development Law Report

California Land Use & Development Law Report offers insights into legal issues relating to development and use of land and federal, state and local permitting and approval processes. View posts by topic. Subscribe 🡢

bridge in coastal area with view of ocean

City’s Ban on Short-Term Vacation Rentals in Coastal Zone Violated Coastal Act

A city's ban on short-term vacation rentals in the coastal zone constitutes "development" under the California Coastal Act. Therefore, the Coastal Commission must first approve a coastal development permit, an amendment to the city's certified local coastal program, or an amendment waiver before such a ban can be imposed. Kracke v. City of Santa Barbara, 63 Cal. App. 5th 1089 (2021).

Placeholder image

Water District Rate Increases Violated Proposition 218

A court of appeal invalidated a water district's adopted rate increases, concluding that the district failed to meet its burden under Proposition 218 of establishing that the increases did not exceed the cost of providing the water service. KCSFV I, LLC v. Florin County Water District, No.

Placeholder image

California Governor Extends Flexibility to Hold Virtual Public Meetings

In March 2020, as part of a series of emergency measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-29-20, allowing local and state agencies to hold virtual meetings via teleconference and to make meetings accessible electronically notwithstanding the open meeting requirements in the Bagley-Keene Act and the Brown Act.

Placeholder image

Judicial Streamlining Renewed for Expanded Set of “Environmental Leadership” Projects

California Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed legislation, Senate Bill No. 7, that reenacts a streamlined litigation process for certain "environmental leadership development projects" and extends eligibility to additional housing projects.

Placeholder image

Deliberate Delay in Prosecuting Brown Act Claims Warranted Dismissal Under Laches Doctrine

Plaintiff's Brown Act claims were barred because unreasonable delay in prosecuting the lawsuit substantially prejudiced parties and the general public. Julian Volunteer Fire Company Association v. Julian-Cuyamaca Fire Protection District, No.

Placeholder image

Agency’s Preparation of Supplemental EIR Rather Than Subsequent EIR for Modifications to Proposed Desalination Plant Was Appropriate

The State Lands Commission was not required to assume the role of lead agency and prepare a subsequent EIR for changes to a desalinization plant for which an EIR had already been certified by the City of Huntington Beach as lead agency. California Coastkeeper Alliance v State Lands Commission, 64 Cal. App.

Placeholder image

Requirement That Proposed Development Mitigate Cumulative Traffic Impacts Violated Nollan/Dolan Standard

An initiative measure that required new development to mitigate not only its individual traffic impacts but also cumulative impacts of other projects on traffic levels of service violated the rough-proportionality standard of Nollan and Dolan and was therefore unconstitutional.

Placeholder image

SB 35 Streamlining Upheld Against “Home Rule” Challenge

Senate Bill 35 (Government Code section 65913.4) was enacted in 2017 as part of an effort by the State Legislature to increase housing production. The law compels local agencies, including charter cities, to issue streamlined approvals for qualifying multifamily residential projects, even, at times, where a project conflicts with a local ordinance.

documents with pen

Plaintiff Not Required to Submit Multiple Development Applications Before Bringing Takings Claim

Multiple applications for a development project are not required where the first permit denial makes clear that no development of the property would be allowed under any circumstance. Felkay v. City of Santa Barbara, No.

Placeholder image

Appellate Courts to Malibu Homeowners: “Defy the Coastal Commission at Your Peril”

Three months ago, the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld a Coastal Commission fine of $1 million on homeowners who performed major reconstruction on their Malibu home without obtaining coastal permits and refused to halt construction after notification of the violation by Commission staff.

Placeholder image

City Policy Favoring Purchasers of Expensive Taxi Medallions Passed Constitutional Muster

A City municipal transit agency did not violate equal protection, substantive due process or state anti-age discrimination laws when it disfavored some taxi cab medallion holders from accessing lucrative airport pickups because, among other things, the law was rationally related to legitimate government interests. San Francisco Taxi Coal. v. City & Cty.

Placeholder image

Court In CEQA Case Applies the Deferential Standard in the Planning and Zoning Law When Determining Whether the Project Is Inconsistent with the Applicable General Plan

Petitioner could not avoid the deferential standard of review under the Planning and Zoning Law regarding an agency's interpretation of its own general plan by framing the challenge as an "inconsistency" between the project and the general plan that required further analysis in the EIR pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. Stop Syar Expansion v County of Napa, 63 Cal. App.

Placeholder image

Suit Challenging Water District’s Ad Valorem Property Tax Was Time-Barred Under the Validation Statutes

A challenge to a water district's increase in its ad valorem property tax was untimely under the 60-day statute of limitations in the validation statutes. Coachella Valley Water District v.

Placeholder image

Conviction for Violation of Clean Water Act Required Knowing Discharge "Into Water"

The Ninth Circuit reversed a conviction for three counts of violations under the Clean Water Act because the district court failed to instruct the jury that the defendant needed to knowingly discharge material "into water" to convict. United States v.

Placeholder image

Agreement to Indemnify LAFCO Against Claims Arising from Annexation Decision Was Unenforceable as Lacking Consideration

The Court of Appeal held that an agreement obligating a developer and city to indemnify LAFCO against claims arising from its annexation decision lacked consideration because the agreement simply required LAFCO to do what it was already obligated to do by statute.