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.
Cumulative Impacts Analysis of Forest Thinning Project Inadequate Under NEPA
The Ninth Circuit held that the Forest Service’s substantial reduction of a forest thinning project between the Draft and Final EAs did not require repeating the public comment process or considering new alternatives under NEPA. However, it found the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to adequately analyze cumulative impacts in conjunction with a related project.
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
Ninth Circuit Upholds FAA’s Alternatives Analysis Limited to Airport Project and No Action Alternative But Invalidates EIS For Failure to Aggregate Construction Equipment Noise
The Ninth Circuit upheld the Federal Aviation Administration's decision to study only the project and the no action alternative in an EIS for a new passenger terminal. However, the court found the FAA violated NEPA by failing to account for the combined noise that could result from the simultaneous operation of different types of construction equipment. City of Los Angeles v.
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.
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).
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).
Plaintiff Not Required to Submit Multiple Development Applications Before Bringing Takings Claim
Multiple applications for a development project are not required where the first permit denial makes clear that no development of the property would be allowed under any circumstance. Felkay v. City of Santa Barbara, No.
Appellate Courts to Malibu Homeowners: “Defy the Coastal Commission at Your Peril”
Three months ago, the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld a Coastal Commission fine of $1 million on homeowners who performed major reconstruction on their Malibu home without obtaining coastal permits and refused to halt construction after notification of the violation by Commission staff.