PLANNING AND ZONING

Old East Davis Neighborhood Association v. City of Davis
73 Cal. App. 5th 895 (2022)

The court of appeal upheld the City’s determination that a mixed-use development was consistent with general plan policies requiring new buildings to maintain scale transition and provide an architectural fit with the neighborhood. The court observed that the applicable policies did not provide a formulistic method for determining whether a proposed structure met the transition requirements. Rather, this determination relied on subjective measures and the dispute was over conflicting evidence on matters such as whether step-backs, extra-wide alleys and other factors created a scale that was consistent with the area’s traditional scale and character. Reviewing each of the City’s consistency determinations, the court found that a reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion based on the record, and the City’s decision was therefore supported by substantial evidence.

Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego
74 Cal. App. 5th 755 (2022)

Relying on the Density Bonus Law, a developer proposed a 20-story mixed-use project with affordable units that would exceed the maximum zoned capacity by 57 units. The developer also sought development incentives, including avoiding a setback restriction and eliminating on-site truck loading spaces. The court rejected petitioner’s claim that the project approval conflicted with several General Plan policies. It ruled that the City did not abuse its discretion in finding that several cited policies were inapplicable and that the project did not conflict with the policies that were applicable. It also found that if the City had denied the requested incentives or failed to waive inconsistent design standards, it would have physically precluded construction of the project and the affordable units, which would defeat the goals of the Density Bonus Law.

AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. City of Los Angeles
78 Cal. App. 5th 167 (2022)

The court rejected a claim that the City’s approval of a mixed-use project violated provisions enacted by the former Community Redevelopment Agency requiring 15 percent of units to be reserved for low-income housing. The court held that the 2011 Redevelopment Dissolution Law rendered the 15 percent requirement inoperative.

Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin
78 Cal. App. 5th 700 (2022)

Under stipulated judgments in federal court, the County agreed to approve development of a minimum of 43 residential units on 110 acres of land subject to compliance with applicable land use laws, including CEQA. The court dismissed petitioner’s claims that the County had effectively contracted away its police powers in the stipulated judgments and abdicated its duties under CEQA by approving the project. The court observed that the project EIR was over 800 pages and went through extensive redrafts, and that the lengthy administrative approval process provided ample opportunities for public input. The County Board would not have gone through such a “protracted charade” had it intended to bypass CEQA. The court also upheld the County’s determination that a less dense project alternative was legally infeasible under CEQA, stating that “no reason in law or logic prevents a final federal court judgment from having [that] impact.”…

Continue Reading 2022 Land Use and Development Law Case Summaries

…

Below are summaries of the key California and Ninth Circuit land use and development law cases decided in 2021.

1.  Planning and Zoning

CHEVRON v. COUNTY OF MONTEREY
70 Cal. App. 5th 153 (2021)

A county ordinance enacted by initiative effectively banned new oil and gas wells and use of wastewater injection (“fracking”) as part of extraction operations. The court held that these measures were preempted by Public Resources Code § 3106, which vests the State of California’s Oil and Gas Supervisor with exclusive authority to decide whether to permit an oil and gas drilling operation or the use of wastewater injection in such operations, leaving no room for local regulation. The court noted that its holding did not affect local regulation of the location of oil drilling operations, a matter not addressed by Section 3106 or the ordinance.

PEOPLE v. VENICE SUITES
71 Cal. App. 5th 715 (2021)

The State of California brought action alleging that the owner of an apartment building was illegally operating a hotel or transient occupancy structure in a building permitted to operate only as an apartment house for long-term tenants. The court held that the Los Angeles Municipal Code did not implicitly prevent an apartment house from being used for short-term occupancies of 30 days or less. The court reasoned that (1) a long-term occupancy requirement for apartment houses could not be inferred from definitions in a later-enacted section of the Code limiting transient occupancy structures to occupancies of 30 days or less and (2) the Code governing apartment houses could not be read in conjunction with either the rent stabilization ordinance or the transient occupancy tax ordinance to require long-term occupancy.

SCHREIBER v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES
69 Cal. App. 5th 549 (2021)

The density bonus law (Gov’t Code § 65915) requires cities to grant incentives to projects that provide a specified number of affordable housing units. Plaintiffs challenged the City’s grant of certain incentives to a project on the ground that the City had failed to require the applicant to provide financial documentation proving that the incentives were required to make the project “economically feasible” as required by a local ordinance. The court held that the referenced ordinance conflicted with Section 65915, which required the City, not the applicant, to bear the burden of proof justifying denial of a requested incentive. The local ordinance was accordingly preempted by Section 65915.

2. Coastal Act

KRACKE v. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
63 Cal. App. 5th 1089 (2021)

In 2015, the City of Santa Barbara directed its staff to regulate short-term rentals as hotels, effectively banning short-term rentals in most residential areas. The court held that the City’s change in policy required Coastal Commission approval because it constituted a “development,” altering the intensity of use and access to land and water in the coastal zone. To proceed, the City would need to obtain a coastal development permit, an amendment to its certified local coastal program, or an amendment waiver. This decision reinforced that restrictions on short-term vacation rentals in the coastal zone—whether by a private entity or a local government—are subject to the Coastal Act and must be approved by the Coastal Commission.

LENT v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
62 Cal. App. 5th 812 (2021)

The court upheld a Coastal Commission penalty of $4,185,000 on Malibu homeowners who refused to remove structures that blocked a public access easement granted to the Commission by a prior owner of the home. The homeowners claimed the penalty violated their due-process rights because it was over four times the amount recommended by Commission staff. The court ruled that due process did not mandate advance notice of the exact penalty the agency intended to impose so long as the agency provided adequate notice of the maximum amount of the possible penalty, which it did in this case. The court also found that the penalty did not amount to an excessive fine under the state or federal constitutions because the homeowners had a high degree of culpability—evidenced by their willful refusal to remove the structures—and their conduct effectively barred access to a beach that was part of a three-mile stretch of the coast with no other public access.
Continue Reading 2021 Land Use and Development Law Case Summaries

Below are summaries of the key California and Ninth Circuit land use and development cases decided in 2020. Each case name is linked to our more extensive discussion of the case on the California Land Use & Development Law Report.

1.  Planning and Zoning

GRANNY PURPS, INC. v. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
53 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2020)

The court of appeal held that the County of Santa Cruz was required to return approximately 2,000 medical marijuana plants seized from a dispensary. Local law enforcement had seized the plants due to a violation of a county zoning ordinance that prohibits cultivation of over 99 medical marijuana plants. The court reasoned that the plants were not subject to seizure because the local zoning ordinance did not change the legal status of medical marijuana under state law. Because medical marijuana is not contraband in California, and local governments are bound by state law, local governments cannot withhold legally possessed marijuana plants.

LATEEF V. CITY OF MADERA
45 Cal. App. 5th 245 (2020)

Plaintiff appealed to the City Council after his conditional permit was denied by the Planning Commission. At the time of the hearing, only five of the seven councilmembers were eligible to vote: one council seat was vacant, and one councilmember had recused himself from voting. Although the Council voted four to one to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision, the City determined that the motion failed to meet the requirement in the municipal code that “five-sevenths vote of the whole of the Council shall be required to grant, in whole or in part, any appealed application denied by the Commission.” The court confirmed the City’s interpretation, finding that nothing in the municipal code indicated that the “whole of the council” meant only those present and voting.

PETROVICH DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO
48 Cal. App. 5th 963 (2020)

The court invalidated the City Council’s denial of plaintiff’s application for a conditional use permit for operation of a gas station, finding that the actions of one of the councilmembers demonstrated hostility and bias toward the project and resulted in denial of a fair hearing. The court relied on evidence that the councilmember was actively lining up votes of other councilmembers against the project, as well as advising a project opponent on how to lobby the council. These concrete facts showed that the councilmember acted as an advocate, not an impartial decisionmaker, and should have recused  himself from voting on the appeal. His actions demonstrated an unacceptable probability of actual bias and denied plaintiff a fair hearing.
Continue Reading 2020 Land Use and Development Case Summaries