Zoning

Subscribe to Zoning via RSS

Public agencies looking to appeal the merits of an adverse judgment and writ of mandate have to be careful about not taking actions which render the lawsuit moot. Awards of attorney’s fees under the private attorney general doctrine are not likely to be reversed on appeal.
Continue Reading Compliance with Trial Court Writ Renders Moot an Appeal on the Merits

In Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 U.S.App. LEXIS 25581 (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a church’s claim that a land use permit regulation violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (“RLUIPA”) was not ripe for judicial review because the church had not completed the requirements for the use permit, and therefore the courts could not determine the particular burden that the church would have to shoulder under the challenged regulation. The court left open the possible argument that the financial cost of complying with a land use permit regulation was so unreasonable or unattainable for a religious institution that such cost could constitute a “substantial burden” on the institution in violation of RLUIPA.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Applies Ripeness Requirement To RLUIPA Claims

City engages in impermissible spot zoning and a compensable taking where it creates a “one-house-per-20-acre island in a two-to-six-house-per-acre sea.”…
Continue Reading Compensable Taking Found Where City’s Spot Zoning Created “A One-House-Per-20-Acre Island In A Two-To-Six-House-Per-Acre Sea”

Senate Bill 436 (SB 436) amends and adds provisions to the California Planning and Zoning Law regarding mitigation lands requiring state and local agencies to protect natural resources that are impacted by their own development projects and to require endowments for the protection of those protected lands. It also authorizes agencies to require endowments for mitigation lands set aside for private projects.
Continue Reading Legislative Update: Mitigation Chapter of Planning and Zoning Law is Amended and Expanded to Ensure the Proper Management of Protected Lands (SB 436)

According to the appellate court in this case, “an individual medical marijuana patient is not the proper party to challenge generally applicable zoning provisions because – whatever the contours of the right to engage in cooperate or collective medical marijuana activity (see e.g., § 11362.775) – the Legislature invested this right in cooperative and collective groups and entities, not individuals.” Therefore, the plaintiff had no standing to bring an action against the city.
Continue Reading No Matter How Compelling a Story, a Medical Marijuana Patient Lacks Standing to Sue City

What happens when a city fails to comply with the provisions of its charter and zoning code and fails to make the proper findings under the Topanga case in granting a conditional use permit and variance? The city has to rehear the matter and make the proper findings based on substantial evidence before it.
Continue Reading Failure Of City To Comply With Its Charter, Zoning Code and the Topanga Case, Requires Reconsideration And Proper Findings For Use Permit And Variances

Under Public Resources Code section 30603, subdivision (a)(4), the California Coastal Commission has appellate jurisdiction over a project within the coastal zone that needs subdivision approval, even if the project involves the construction of a principal permitted use under the local coastal plan.
Continue Reading Coastal Commission Has Appellate Jurisdiction Over A Project That Needs Subdivision Approval, Even If The Project’s Use Complies With The Local Coastal Plan

In the case of South Orange County Wastewater Authority v. City of Dana Point (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 1604 (“South Orange”), the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District was asked to order an environmental impact report (EIR) be prepared to assess the impact of the environment on a proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The court of appeal declined to order such an EIR. The court of appeal also addressed whether the adopted project was inconsistent with the city’s general plan and zoning ordinance, and found that the project was consistent.
Continue Reading Adjacent Landowners Can’t Use CEQA to Avoid Potential Nuisance Claims