California’s statues of limitations in land use cases are notoriously short and harsh and don’t often result in outcomes favorable to aggrieved applicants. Exceptions such as Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2020) (Case No. F077815) (i.e., Honchariw IV), are thus notable and worth remembering.
Continue Reading Court Holds That Subdivider’s Challenge to County’s Interpretation of Vesting Tentative Map Conditions of Approval May be Filed Beyond 90-Day Statute of Limitations Period
Conditions of Approval
Takings Challenge to Coastal Commission Setback Condition Fails for Not Presenting “Exact Issue” to the Agency
By Bryan W. Wenter, AICP on
The California Coastal Act governs land use planning for California’s entire coastal zone, directing the state Coastal Commission to maximize the public access to and along the coast consistent with the rights of property owners. The Act protects public access by, among other things, precluding development from interfering with such use and protecting oceanfront land suitable for recreational use. The Act also requires the Commission to minimize potential conflicts between the public and beachfront property owners and to resolve potential conflicts between the Coastal Act’s policies in a way that, on balance, is most protective of significant coastal resources.
Continue Reading Takings Challenge to Coastal Commission Setback Condition Fails for Not Presenting “Exact Issue” to the Agency
California Supreme Court Holds that Landowners Forfeited Right to Challenge Conditions of Permit to Build New Seawall by Proceeding with Construction
By Bryan W. Wenter, AICP on
Posted in Conditions of Approval, Land Use
On July 2, 2017, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lynch v. California Coastal Commission, __ Cal.5th __ (Case No. S221980), holding that the owners of two coastal bluff properties in Encinitas forfeited their right to challenge the California Coastal Commission’s permit conditions by complying with all pre-issuance requirements, accepting the permit, and building the seawall.
Since 1986, the properties have been protected by a shared seawall, with wooden poles, at the base of the bluff and a midbluff erosion control structure. A shared stairway provided the only access from the blufftop to the beach below. In 1989, the Commission retroactively approved a coastal development permit for the seawall, midbluff structure, and stairway. In 2009, the owners applied to the City to replace the aging seawall and midbluff structure with an integrated concrete wall and to rebuild the lower portion of the stairway. The City approved the project, subject to the Commission’s approval of a coastal development permit. But while the owner’s permit was pending, heavy winter storms caused the bluff below one of the owner’s homes to collapse, destroying portions of the seawall, midbluff structure, and stairway.Continue Reading California Supreme Court Holds that Landowners Forfeited Right to Challenge Conditions of Permit to Build New Seawall by Proceeding with Construction
When Land Use Regulations Collide with the Protections of the Second Amendment
By Bryan W. Wenter, AICP on
The Second Amendment states that “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense. See 554 U.S. 570, 574–626 (2008). The Supreme Court has not yet clarified the entire field of Second Amendment jurisprudence, however, and given that there is an individual right to bear arms for self-defense, there is a growing split in the nation’s lower courts about whether gun sellers have Second Amendment rights.
Continue Reading When Land Use Regulations Collide with the Protections of the Second Amendment