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.
Supreme Court Rules Legislatively Adopted Exactions Not Exempt From Nollan/Dolan Scrutiny
City’s Interpretation of its Ordinance Regarding Coastal Development Permit Requirement for Attached ADU Was Not Entitled to Deference
Court Invalidates Ordinance Reducing Floor Area Ratio on Residential Lots
Housing Accountability Act Provision That Prohibits an Agency From Requiring a Rezoning When Zoning Is Inconsistent with the General Plan Inapplicable Where City Found Zoning Consistent
Coastal Commission Has De Novo Authority Over Issuance of Coastal Development Permits
Court Held That Obligation to Further Fair Housing Requires More Than the Absence of Discrimination and That Base Zoning Allowing Lower Densities Violated Housing Element Law Even Though Overlay Zoning Required Minimum Densities
A court addressed the City of Clovis' repeated failures to accommodate lower-income housing needs.
Subway Construction Work Did Not Inversely Condemn Hotel Property
A hotel owner brought a lawsuit against a county transportation authority and a general contractor for nuisance and inverse condemnation alleging that the construction of an underground subway line disrupted the operation of the hotel and caused various problems, such as noise and dust, which interfered with the use and enjoyment of the property and resulted in monetary damages.
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).
CEQA Challenge to Campus Town Project in Monterey County Was Untimely
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).
Action Challenging Restrictions on Short-Term Vacation Rentals Was Barred by 90-Day Statute of Limitations
Coastal Commission Must Complete Environmental Review Under Its Certified Regulatory Program Before Approving Permit
The court of appeal found that the California Coastal Commission erred by approving a coastal development permit for a residential development before environmental review for the project had been completed. Friends, Artists and Neighbors of Elkhorn Slough v. California Coastal Commission, 2021 WL 5905714 (No. H048088, 6th Dist., December 14, 2021).
Pursuit of State Administrative Remedies Not Necessary to Obtain Final Decision for Federal Takings Claim
The U.S. Supreme Court held that property owners do not have to comply with state administrative processes to obtain a final decision before bringing a takings claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the government's position is clear. Pakdel v.
Public Notice Need Not State That Permit Will Be Deemed Approved in Order for Permit Streamlining Act to Apply
City’s Ban on Short-Term Vacation Rentals in Coastal Zone Violated Coastal Act
A city's ban on short-term vacation rentals in the coastal zone constitutes "development" under the California Coastal Act. Therefore, the Coastal Commission must first approve a coastal development permit, an amendment to the city's certified local coastal program, or an amendment waiver before such a ban can be imposed. Kracke v. City of Santa Barbara, 63 Cal. App. 5th 1089 (2021).