In a low-profile but important new decision, San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission v. City of Pismo Beach, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2021) (Case No. B296968), the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court decision and held that the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act (Gov. Code § 56000 et seq.) does not authorize a local agency formation commission (“LAFCO”) to require an indemnification agreement or to require the payment of attorney fees based on such an agreement.
Continue Reading Game Changer: Public Agency Cannot Mandate Payment of Attorney Fees Under Indemnity Agreement Without Specific Statutory Authority
Land Use
Proposed California Budget Would Create Housing Accountability Unit and Add New Targeted CEQA Exemptions Focused on Housing
On January 8, 2021 California Governor Gavin Newsom proposed an expansive state budget that includes $1.75 billion to purchase additional motels, develop short-term community mental health facilities, and purchase and preserve housing dedicated to seniors, $500 million in low income housing tax credits, and $250 million for infill infrastructure intended to facilitate housing.
Continue Reading Proposed California Budget Would Create Housing Accountability Unit and Add New Targeted CEQA Exemptions Focused on Housing
Court Upholds Coastal Commission Cease and Deist Order Directing Homeowners to Remove Seawall Protecting $25 Million Home and Pay $1 Million Administrative Penalty
On December 18, 2020, the Fourth District Court of Appeal published 11 Lagunita, LLC v. California Coastal Commission, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2020) (Case No. G058436), a case involving a Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission in 2015 for the reinforcement of an existing seawall that was installed years earlier, before the Coastal Act, at the base of a 1950’s era Laguna Beach home.
Continue Reading Court Upholds Coastal Commission Cease and Deist Order Directing Homeowners to Remove Seawall Protecting $25 Million Home and Pay $1 Million Administrative Penalty
Ninth Circuit to Supreme Court: Pound Sand
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has federal appellate jurisdiction over a major portion of the western U.S., has something of a reputation as the most overturned federal appeals court circuit. While the truth of that is a mixed bag, an October 13, 2020 order in an important property rights case looks to be a worthy candidate for both a petition for writ of certiorari, a grant of cert by the U.S. Supreme Court, and maybe more.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit to Supreme Court: Pound Sand
What Might Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Mean to Property Rights?
Judge Amy Coney Barrett was nominated, for a reason, to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice. As other commenters have noted, a Justice Barrett is expected to move the Court to the right on a wide range of issues, including health care, gun control, and abortion. But what is far less clear at this point is how a Justice Barrett would influence or alter the Court’s property rights jurisprudence.
Continue Reading What Might Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Mean to Property Rights?
Completion of Development Project Rendered Opponent’s Challenge to County’s Issuance of a Building Permit Moot
The Third District Court of Appeal published an important new case on September 16, 2020—Parkford Owners for a Better Community v. County of Placer, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2020) (Case No. C087824)—holding that a project opponent’s challenge to the expansion of a development project was moot given that construction was nearly complete. The case distinguishes other leading cases addressing “mootness” in the land use and CEQA context and provides important insights for those involved in the development process.
Continue Reading Completion of Development Project Rendered Opponent’s Challenge to County’s Issuance of a Building Permit Moot
Court Holds That County’s Abandonment of Public Road Easement Rights Did Not Violate Brown Act, Was Supported by Substantial Evidence, and Did Not Create Takings Liability
On August 17, 2020, in Martis Camp Community Association v. County of Placer, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2020) (Case Nos. C087759 and C087778), the Third District Court of Appeal addressed several novel legal claims arising from the County of Placer’s partial abandonment of public easement rights in a road connecting two adjacent residential subdivisions near Lake Tahoe.
Continue Reading Court Holds That County’s Abandonment of Public Road Easement Rights Did Not Violate Brown Act, Was Supported by Substantial Evidence, and Did Not Create Takings Liability
Court Holds That Dispensary’s Violation of County Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance Does Not Justify Seizure of Plants But Rejects Related Takings Claim
On August 5, 2020, in Granny Purps, Inc. v. County of Santa Cruz, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2020) (Case No. H045387), the Sixth District Court of Appeal addressed several novel property rights issues related to a law enforcement action in the County of Santa Cruz in which officers seized more than 2,000 marijuana plants from a medical marijuana dispensary for violating a local ordinance restricting marijuana cultivation to no more than 99 plants.
Continue Reading Court Holds That Dispensary’s Violation of County Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance Does Not Justify Seizure of Plants But Rejects Related Takings Claim
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
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
Court Rules in Favor of Landowner in Eminent Domain Case Where City Did Not Use Condemned Property for its Intended Public Use Within 10 Years
Every once in a while a case comes along that calls to mind the adage that “just because you can think it doesn’t mean you should say it.” The Second District Court of Appeal’s July 30, 2020 eminent domain decision in Rutgard v. City of Los Angeles, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2020) (Case No. B297655) is one of those cases.
Continue Reading Court Rules in Favor of Landowner in Eminent Domain Case Where City Did Not Use Condemned Property for its Intended Public Use Within 10 Years