Planning

Subscribe to Planning via RSS

By Cori M. Badgley

In Ocean Harbor House Homeowners Association v. California Coastal Commission (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 215, the California Coastal Commission (“Commission”) imposed a $5.3 million mitigation fee on a homeowner’s association that needed a permit to build a seawall to protect residences that would otherwise fall into the ocean. Attempting to find relief from the fee, the homeowner’s association sued the Commission, but the court denied all relief and upheld the fee.
Continue Reading A Detailed Record Can Make All the Difference: Court Upholds Commission’s Imposition of $5.3 Million Fee

By Cori M. Badgley and Kate J. Hart

In an attempt to invalidate or, at a minimum, get damages for the California Coastal Commission’s (“Commission”) denial of a coastal development permit, Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. (“Pratt”) brought suit against the Commission, claiming that the Commission’s decision violated Pratt’s vested right to develop its property and, in the alternative, if the decision was valid, the Commission committed a regulatory taking by denying the coastal development permit. In Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Commission (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1068, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District upheld the Commission’s denial of the permit and dismissed Pratt’s regulatory takings claim for lack of ripeness.
Continue Reading The Development Blues: Property Lies Undeveloped for 30 Years and Counting

By Glen Hansen

Applicants don’t like being denied a local land use permit. It is equally frustrating for project opponents who fail to stop an approval by a local governmental board to understand why the decision makers didn’t endorse their arguments. Many believe that the failure to prevail before an agency is not due to the merits of the cause, but is the result of some unstated, nefarious plot or bias in the collective heads of the agency board that rejected the position. However, the Court of Appeal recently reminded us that digging into the thought process of administrative officials is generally out of bounds.
Continue Reading DON’T GO THERE! Inquiring into the Thought Processes of Government Officials

By Janell M. Bogue

You wouldn’t think that a simple, wooden fence would create enough controversy to fuel an extensive administrative process, a trial court case, and an appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District. However, in the case of Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan and Hollywood Heritage v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 2008 Cal.App.Lexis 501, that is exactly what happened.
Continue Reading Good Fences Make Good Neighbors but Bad Fences Make Appellate Opinions

By William W. Abbott

The case of Brewer v. Murphy (Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, Case No. F051700) involved three riparian owners and a dispute over a spring box and pipeline. The riparian owners are listed here in order from the lower riparian to the upper riparian: Brewer, Hagg and Murphy/Klein. In 1979, Brewer acquired property in eastern Fresno County. The source of water was a spring box on property owned by Murphy/Klein’s predecessor, located roughly one mile away. When Murphy (and later Klein, who acquired a part interest from Murphy) took title, neither was actually aware of the spring box or pipeline.
Continue Reading Open Hostility: Validating Prescriptive Easements

By Janell M. Bogue

In the case of Citizens for Responsible and Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (February 21, 2008) 2008 Cal.App.Lexis 359 the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District held that a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) approved for a senior residential project was inadequate under CEQA. In doing so, the court discussed density calculations and the weighing of evidence under the fair argument test.
Continue Reading Court of Appeal Applies Fair Argument Test in Appeal of Senior Housing Project

By Cori Badgley

In 2004, a jury awarded Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. (“ABFI”) over $5 million in civil damages. The trial court assessed these damages against individual County officials as well as the County of Santa Barbara (“County”). On March 4, 2008, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District overturned the award of damages in an unpublished opinion, Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara (Docket No. B180880, 2008). The appellate court held that Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. lacked standing to bring its constitutional claims and the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Therefore, the civil damages had to be overturned.
Continue Reading $5 Million Judgment Against Santa Barbara County Overturned by Appellate Court

By Leslie Z. Walker

In February of 2008, the state Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District held in Douda v. Cali-fornia Coastal Commission (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1181, that the Commission, when issuing a coastal development permit, may designate environmentally sensitive habitat area if a local coastal plan (“LCP”) for the area has not been certified.
Continue Reading Coastal Commission May Designate Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area

By Rob Hofmann

The California Coastal Commission lacks the statutory authority required to declare a property an ‘environmentally sensitive habitat area’ when it hears an appeal from a local government’s grant of a coastal development permit to develop the property. Such action infringes upon powers that the Legislature expressly allocated to local government. Security National Guaranty v. California Coastal Commission (2008) Cal. App. LEXIS 131, January 25, 2008.
Continue Reading Coastal Commission Out of Bounds with ESHA Determination

By Joel Ellinwood, AICP

The Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, continues this year’s deluge of land use and environmental law decisions by revisiting the first principles of planning and zoning law in Neighbors in Support of Appropriate Land Use v. Tuolumne County, filed and certified for publication on December 7, 2007. The court held that a development agreement between the property owner and the County to authorize a use otherwise prohibited in the same zoning district throughout the County violates the uniformity requirement of Government Code section 65852 and is invalid.
Continue Reading If the Zoning Isn’t Uniform, the Court Won’t Salute