Justia Zoning, Planning & Land Use Opinion Summaries

Schellinger planned commercial development of a large Sebastopol tract that it had agreed to purchase from Cotter. Certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, 21000) was stalled for five years. In the first lawsuit, the court of appeal rejected Schellinger’s contention that CEQA section 21151.1 imposed a mandatory deadline of one year for EIR approval of an EIR and noted that a significant portion of the delay was attributable to Schellinger’s changes to its proposal. Cotter then sued Schellinger for breach of the contract, arguing that the prior litigation established that Schellinger took an unreasonably long time to secure approval. The trial court rejected that argument, but fixed a date by which Schellinger must secure final approval. The court of appeal affirmed. Schellinger then sued Cotter for breaching the contract and obtained a $2,855,431.77 judgment, plus costs and attorney fees. The court of appeal affirmed, agreeing that Cotter committed a breach of contract “animated by egregious bad faith” after failing to obtain relief in prior litigation, by undermining Schellinger’s efforts to obtain approval and by Cotter’s management of the property and efforts to transfer the property to others. View "Schellinger Bros. v. Cotter" on Justia Law

Target appealed the superior court's ruling that invalidates a number of exceptions to a specific governing development in Hollywood and halts construction of a Target store. Target concurrently asked the Los Angeles City Council to amend the plan, which would make the invalidated exceptions unnecessary. The court concluded that the appeals and cross-appeal in this matter are dismissed as moot because the plan amendments have now been finally approved. View "La Mirada Ave. Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

This litigation involves two parallel fire roads, an older one and its newer replacement. On appeal, defendants challenged the trial court's judgment declaring a public trail easement was established by public dedication through defendants’ property for hiking, jogging, and dog-walking. The court concluded that no substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the public acquired an easement through defendants’ property by implied dedication as provided for under Gion v. City of Santa Cruz. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment and subsequent award of attorney fees to plaintiffs. View "Friends of the Hastain Trail v. Coldwater" on Justia Law

Dynamic Development, LLC (Dynamic) sought to build a new retail store (Project) in Joshua Tree. Residents of Joshua Tree opposed the Project, arguing that it would have clashed with the town's artistic, independent, and rural character; they also argued that it would cause various adverse environmental impacts, including urban decay. Nevertheless, the County of San Bernardino (County) found that an environmental impact report (EIR) was not required and approved the Project. The Joshua Tree Downtown Business Alliance (Alliance) then filed this mandate proceeding challenging the County's approval of the Project. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded that the Alliance failed to establish any grounds for a writ of mandate, and reversed the trial court's conclusion that there was evidence to support the Alliance's contention that the Project would cause urban decay (thereby setting aside approval of the Project). View "Joshua Tree Downtown Bus. Alliance v. Co. of San Bernardino" on Justia Law

Selma filed a writ of mandate challenging LAFCo’s approval of an annexation. At issue is when a local agency formation commission sets a public hearing on a reorganization proposal and thereafter continues the hearing date beyond the 70-day limitation for continuances under Government Code section 56666, subdivision (a), is the approval of the reorganization proposal by the commission void because it violated a mandatory provision? The court concluded that the 70-day limitation is a directory rather than a mandatory provision. Therefore, the court held that the violation of the 70-day limitation in this case did not affect the validity of the commission’s actions taken at the continued hearing. The court affirmed the judgment. View "City of Selma v. Fresno Cnty. Local etc." on Justia Law

Dynamic Development, LLC (Dynamic) sought to build a new retail store (Project) in Joshua Tree. Residents of Joshua Tree vociferously opposed the Project. They argued that it would clash with the town’s artistic, independent, and rural character; they also argued that it would cause various adverse environmental impacts, including urban decay. Nevertheless, the County of San Bernardino (County) found that an environmental impact report (EIR) was not required and approved the Project. The Joshua Tree Downtown Business Alliance (Alliance) then filed this mandate proceeding challenging the County’s approval of the Project. The trial court agreed there was substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project could cause urban decay; it therefore issued a writ of mandate directing the County to set aside its approval of the Project. Dynamic appealed. The Alliance cross-appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by rejecting its other contentions. After review, the Court of Appeal held that the Alliance failed to establish any grounds for a writ of mandate. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment was reversed. View "Joshua Tree Downtown Bus. Alliance v. Co. of San Bernardino" on Justia Law

The Association filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the approval of a shopping center project that would be adjacent to an established residential neighborhood. The trial court denied the writ petition and entered judgment in favor of the City. The court upheld the City's determination that the project was consistent with the Neighborhood Plan Prototype policies of the General Plan. The court concluded that when the rezoning policy is construed in light of the other provisions of the General Plan, the meaning of what is adequate mitigation under the circumstances must make allowances for the fact that mitigation is not required where it is infeasible. Therefore, the Association has failed to demonstrate that the City erred by simply adopting findings that did not require infeasible mitigation. Under the exhaustion doctrine, the court concluded that the Association's claims regarding other General Plan policies were not preserved and the court declined to consider them. The court also concluded that the City complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. Finally, the court concluded that substantial evidence supports the City’s CEQA findings regarding urban decay and the statement of overriding considerations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the petition for writ of mandate. View "Naraghi Lakes Neighborhood Pres. Ass'n v. City of Modesto" on Justia Law

The 2008 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375), was enacted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Earlier measures empowered the Air Resources Board to enact statewide mandates to reduce emissions. SB 375 empowers the Board to set targets for regional planning agencies to reduce emissions from automobiles and light trucks and requires each regional agency, after extensive planning, to develop a “sustainable community strategy” to meet those targets using regional land use and transportation policies. In 2010, the Board issued targets for the Bay Area region, calling for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments to develop strategies that would result in per capita percentage reductions in emissions of 7 percent by 2020 and 15 percent by 2035, as compared to emissions in 2005. These reductions were to be in addition to those expected from pre-existing statewide mandates. The Agencies updated the regional transportation plan and prepared their first sustainable communities strategy, “Plan Bay Area” and approved a final environmental impact report. The Board accepted the Agencies’ determination that Plan Bay Area would meet its emission reduction targets. Citizens offered an alternative plan that counted on reductions expected from pre-existing statewide mandates and challenged the environmental impact report and the Plan aa “draconian.” The trial court, concluding that reliance on pre-existing statewide mandates to meet the regional targets would constitute improper double counting not permitted by SB 375, denied Citizens’ petition. The court of appeal affirmed. Citizens’ approach was contradicted by SB 375’s emphasis on regional innovations and legislative declarations and findings. View "Bay Area Citizens v. Ass'n Bay Area Gov'ts" on Justia Law

The court of appeal previously remanded the suit, concerning the rights to groundwater contained in the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin. The parties are landowners who extract groundwater for agricultural use and public water producers that pump groundwater for municipal and industrial use. The court of appeal directed the trial court to quiet title to the landlowners’ overlying rights to native groundwater by declaring that these rights have priority over all appropriators, less the amount that the public producers are entitled to pursuant to their prescriptive rights. The trial court amended its judgment to hold that the city had established a total prescriptive right of 5100 acre feet per year and Golden State Water Company had established a total prescriptive right of 1900 acre feet per year, both perfected against the Basin aquifer as a whole, so only a proportionate amount of the prescriptive right could be exercised against the landowners’ overlying rights. The court did not quantify the proportionate prescriptive rights nor reconsider its prevailing party determination or allocation of costs. The court of appeal affirmed, holding that the trial court properly quieted title and did not err when it declined to reconsider the prevailing party determination. View "City of Santa Maria v. Adam" on Justia Law

Five days after Stewart obtained a building permit to construct a crematorium on a site in East Oakland, the City Council passed an emergency ordinance requiring a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate new crematoria. The Planning Commission denied Stewart's administrative appeal that the emergency ordinance applied to its proposed crematorium. Stewart then filed suit against the City, alleging administrative-mandamus claims. The trial court granted one of Stewart’s claims petitioning for writ of administrative mandamus, ruling that Stewart had a vested right in the building permit based on a preexisting local ordinance and that the emergency ordinance was not sufficiently necessary to the public welfare to justify an impairment of that right. The court rejected the City's argument that Stewart had no vested right; that even if Stewart had a vested right, it was not impaired; and that even if Stewart had a vested right that was impaired, the impairment was supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence of a danger or nuisance to the public that justified the City’s application of the emergency ordinance to Stewart’s project and affirmed the judgment. View "Stewart Enter. v. City of Oakland" on Justia Law