California Land Use & Development Law Report
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.
CEQA Review Not Required for Water Allocations That Were Part of Earlier Project
A CEQA challenge to water allocations by the City of Los Angeles and its Department of Water and Power was barred by the statute of limitations because the allocations were under leases approved years earlier. County of Mono v. City of Los Angeles, 81 Cal.App.5th 657 (2022).
City of Davis Did Not Err in Finding Mixed-Use Project Consistent With General Plan
The court of appeal held that the City's determination that a mixed-use development project was consistent with applicable general plans policies and standards was supported by substantial evidence. Old East Davis Neighborhood Association v. City of Davis, 43 Cal. App. 5th 895 (2022).
Single Home Not Subject to the Housing Accountability Act
The court of appeal held that the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) does not apply to a one-unit single-family home project. Reznitskiy v. County of Marin, 79 Cal.App.5th 1016 (2022).
California Courts Lack Jurisdiction to Hear Challenges to Regional Housing Needs Allocations
The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that California courts do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims involving objections to regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) allocations. City of Coronado v. San Diego Association of Governments, 80 Cal. App. 5th 21 (2022).
Responsible Agency Under CEQA Must Make Express Findings as to Each Potentially Significant Impact Identified in Lead Agency’s EIR
Court Upholds Equitable Easement Between Neighbors in Property Line Dispute
The court reversed a decision to grant an implied easement between two homeowners but upheld granting an equitable easement. Romero v. Shih, 78 Cal. App. 5th 326 (2022).
Court Upholds EIR for Kern River Diversion and Storage Project
A California Court of Appeal held that the EIR for a public water authority's river diversion and water storage project adequately described the unadjudicated waters to be diverted and adequately analyzed impacts to water rights and groundwater supply. Buena Vista Water Storage District v. Kern Water Bank Authority 76 Cal. App. 5th 576 (2022).
County Did Not Violate Its Duties Under CEQA By Approving a Project at the Density Agreed to in a Stipulated Judgment
The court held that the County of Marin did not abdicate its duties under CEQA when it approved a specific project pursuant to a stipulated judgment. Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin, 78 Cal. App. 5th 700 (2022).
EIR Recirculation Not Required Although Final Version of Approved Project Was Not Specifically Evaluated in EIR
Ninth Circuit Holds Terms of Management Agency Agreement Governing Non-Point Source Pollution on Federal Lands Supersedes Other State Law Requirements
CEQA Challenge to Campus Town Project in Monterey County Was Untimely
EIR’s Statement of Project Objectives Was Unduly Narrow
Ban on Short-Term Rentals Required Coastal Commission Approval
The Court of Appeal held that absent a distinction between short- and long-term rentals, both are permitted under city zoning ordinances, and any ban on short-term rentals that changes the status quo is an amendment that requires Coastal Commission approval. Darby T. Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach 77 Cal. App. 5th 142 (2022).
Order Denying Writ of Administrative Mandamus is a Final, Appealable Judgment
The Court of Appeal held that a ruling denying a petition for writ of mandate constitutes the final judgment in the case and triggers the 60-day period for filing an appeal. Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale, 76 Cal.App.5th 43 (2022).
Suit Challenging City’s Interpretation of 20-Year-Old Affordable Housing Agreement Was Timely
The Court of Appeal ruled that a suit concerning an affordable housing fee that plaintiff had agreed to pay two decades earlier was still timely because the 90-day limitations period under the Subdivision Map Act did not begin to run until a dispute arose over the interpretation of provisions in the affordable housing agreement. Schmeir v. City of Berkeley, 76 Cal. App.