Skip to main content
Home
Home

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. Subscribe 🡢

Placeholder image

Meritless CEQA Suit Warranted Malicious Prosecution Claim Against Attorney

The court of appeal held that an attorney's actions in filing and prosecuting a meritless challenge to construction of a single-family home supported a claim for malicious prosecution. Jenkins v. Brandt-Hawley, No A162852 (1st Dist., Dec 28, 2022).

View blog post
Placeholder image

<strong>90-Day Limitations Period in Government Code § 65009 Applied to Political Reform Act Challenge to Land-Use Permits</strong>

A suit seeking to set aside land-use approvals based on an alleged bribery scheme in violation of the Political Reform Act was subject to the 90-day statute of limitations for actions challenging land-use decisions. AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. City of Los Angeles, No. B311144 (2nd Dist., Dec. 14, 2022).

View blog post
Placeholder image

CEQA Categorical Exemption Must Be Agendized under Brown Act

On February 15, 2023, the California Supreme Court issued an order depublishing this decision. While still binding on the parties to the case, the decision can no longer be cited or relied on as authority.

View blog post
Placeholder image

City Properly Approved Project Under Land-Use Standards Existing at Time of Original Application

Under the Housing Accountability Act, a proposed residential development should be evaluated under the land-use standards that applied when the original application was deemed complete, not those at the time of the final decision on the project. Save Lafayette v. City of Lafayette, 85 Cal.App.5th 842 (2022).

View blog post
Placeholder image

City Properly Exempted Project from Certain Local Development Standards Under Density Bonus Law

The City did not abuse its discretion in finding a residential project to be consistent with the City's development standards since the project qualified for exemption from those standards under the Density Bonus Law. Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego 74 Cal. App. 5th 755 (2022).

View blog post
Placeholder image

Traffic Mitigation Fee Did Not Violate the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine Under Nolan and Dolan

A traffic mitigation fee required for construction of a single-family home did not amount to an "unconstitutional condition" in violation of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the County complied with the Mitigation Fee Act in assessing the fee. Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, No. C093682 (4th Dist., Oct 19, 2022).

View blog post
Placeholder image

Dam Operations Authorized Under 1954 Statute Potentially Included Protection of Endangered Species.

­­The Ninth Circuit held that statutory language defining the scope of operations of Twitchell Dam was sufficiently broad to potentially include releases of water to facilitate migration of Southern California Steelhead to the ocean. San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper v. Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District, No. 21-55479 (9th Cir., Sept. 23, 2022).

View blog post
Placeholder image

California Allows Housing on Commercial Lands and Limits Required Parking

In what has become a near-annual ritual, California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed into law a large package of bills aimed at addressing the state's glaring housing shortage.

View blog post
Placeholder image

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).

View blog post
Placeholder image

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).

View blog post
Placeholder image

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).

View blog post
Placeholder image

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).

View blog post
Placeholder image

Responsible Agency Under CEQA Must Make Express Findings as to Each Potentially Significant Impact Identified in Lead Agency’s EIR

View blog post
Placeholder image

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).

View blog post
Placeholder image

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).

View blog post
Home
Jump back to top