Coastal Act To Square Off Against Mello Act In Mobile Home Park Case

A state appellate court ruling striking down an affordable housing mandate in the City of Los Angeles could have statewide implications. Affordable-housing advocates and municipal attorneys say the decision, if it stands, calls into question inclusionary housing ordinances that require developers to set aside and price a certain percentage of new rental units at below-market rates.

The Malibu Bay Company (MBC) owns the last undeveloped beach front parcel in Malibu, a 2.08-acre, 200-foot-wide parcel. In order to accommodate its proposed division into four parcels, MDC proposed an amendment to the Local Implementation Plan of Malibu's local coastal plan in order to create a new zoning district which would allow for lot widths of 45 feet, a decrease from the, then existing, standard of 80 feet.

In a pair of decisions issued on the same day, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Four, has addressed the scope of permitted regulation when a mobile home park owner elects to convert a park into a residential subdivision and sell individual spaces. In cases from the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles suburb of Carson, the court ruled that local government may apply state law and local considerations to restrict mobile home park conversions.

A decision by the Coastal Commission not to intervene in a dispute between Malibu property owners was upheld by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court affirmed the Commission's refusal to conduct a hearing on a proposed beachfront house that was approved by the City of Malibu but opposed by the next door neighbors. The court also found that a State Lands Commission failure to investigate the project's potential impact on public tidelands was not enough to disturb the city's approval.

The Coastal Commission has no jurisdiction over a fence at the base of a coastal bluff in Torrance because a 1988 boundary agreement among state entities and landowners authorized the fence, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled.

A property owner cannot participate in a California Coastal Commission appeal process for years and then assert that the Commission was prohibited from considering the appeal because it missed a procedural deadline years earlier, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court rejected a Pacific Palisades landowner's contention that the Commission had lost jurisdiction over an appeal of the landowner's three-lot development because the Commission did not conduct a hearing within 49 days of receiving an appeal in 1999.

When a development project straddles the coastal zone boundary, the Coastal Commission may not use its jurisdiction over the portion of the project within the coastal zone to influence development outside of the zone, the state Supreme Court has ruled.

In an important decision on taking law, a divided California Supreme Court has ruled that a temporary taking did not occur when an erroneous decision by the California Coastal Commission delayed a property owner's plans to build a house in Malibu. The case is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a case pitting a real estate brokerage against a homeowners association, the trial court sustained demurrers to the HOA's complaint against real estate brokers who acted as dual agents in the developers' sale of properties in the development to HOA members. 

A City of West Hollywood moratorium on new multi-family housing development has been declared invalid by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the city had not made required findings for the moratorium.

The City of Patterson's in-lieu affordable housing fee has been invalidated by the Fifth District Court of Appeal, which rejected the city's methodology for setting the fee. Homebuilders celebrated the decision as a victory in their long fight to constrain development fees, while affordable housing advocates and municipal attorneys described the ruling as limited.

A lawsuit challenging the City of Pleasanton's housing policies has been reinstated by the First District Court of Appeal after a trial court judge had ruled the lawsuit was filed too late. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel determined the statute of limitations for the lawsuit had not expired. The court concluded housing advocates had at least three years to sue the city.