Land Use, Environmental, and Real Estate Law in California
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
By Janell M. Bogue
A California appellate court recently addressed the approval of yet another Wal-Mart Superstore, this time in the City of Stockton (“City”). In Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton (November 28, 2007) 2007 Cal.App.LEXIS 1960, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District directed the trial court to set aside the approvals for a 200,000 plus square foot Wal-Mart, which would have been located in Spanos Park West (“Park”). The court held that a letter from the City’s Community Development Director (“Director”) was not an approval by a public agency. Since there was no approval by a public agency, the notice of exemption (“NOE”) was not valid and the short 35-day statute of limitations could not apply.
Continue Reading Invalid Approval Based on Lack of Legal Authority Leads to Invalid Notice of Exemption and Long Statute of Limitations for Challenged Wal-Mart
By Janell M. Bogue
The California Supreme Court’s decision in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova addressed the sufficiency of future water supplies for a long-term, large scale development. In the case of Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles, the Second Appellate District determined that an EIR for a long-term project met the requirements discussed in the Vineyard case.
Continue Reading Paper Water Revisited: Second Appellate District Applies the Principles of Vineyard
In the recent case City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern (August 10, 2007) 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62323, the United States District Court for the Central District of California held that an initiative ordinance in Kern County approved by the voters which had the effect of banning the land application of biosolids was unconstitutional.
Continue Reading The Sludge is Here to Stay: City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern
By Cori M. Badgley and William W. Abbott
In 2004, SB 1818 amended section 65915 of the Government Code, pertaining to the density bonus law. The purpose of SB 1818 was to encourage developers to build affordable housing by requiring local governments to provide incentives to do so. There was confusion in understanding the new provisions in Government Code section 65915 and the legislature clarified the density bonus law a year later with the enactment of SB 435. This year, the First Appellate District Court of Appeal heard the first case interpreting the amendments of SB 1818.
Continue Reading Density Bonus Law Update: An Overview of the Law and A Look at the First Case to Interpret the 2004 Amendments
By Cori Badgley and Kate Hart
“When is a project consistent with a general plan?” continues to be a question faced by local governments, developers, environmental advocates, and of course, the courts. A recent case out of Solano County, Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (August 28, 2007) 2007 Cal.App.LEXIS 1424, illustrates the important role the drafters of the general plan play in establishing the consistency parameters for the projects that follow.
Continue Reading Flexible General Plan Leads to Flexible Consistency
By Leslie Z. Walker
Attorney General Jerry Brown and the County of San Bernardino (“County”) have reached a landmark settlement in the state’s global warming suit against the County.
Continue Reading Landmark Settlement in Global Warming Case
By Kate J. Hart and Brian Hoffman
On June 7, 2007, the California Supreme Court addressed head on the issue of whether or not cities may use their planning and zoning powers to directly impact economic competition. The case is Adrian Hernandez v. City of Hanford (June 7, 2007) 2007 Cal.Lexis 5586. This case affirms the ability of cities to impact economic competition in a direct and intended manner because it allows just such an impact so long as the primary purpose of the zoning action is to achieve a valid public purpose and not simply to serve an impermissible anticompetitive private purpose.
Continue Reading Zoning, Business Competition and Public Purposes
