Legal Digest

Four lots in Los Osos were already on local water and sewer. San Luis Obispo County approved creating three new lots that already had sewer laterals and water meters. But the Coastal Commission said no and, in an unpublished ruling, an appellate court has agreed. 

City agrees to move project forward without required vote, while developer agrees to increase affordable housing from 20% to 25% of project and agree to an EIR.

The City of Berkeley got hammered in court for violating SB 35 and the HAA by denying a project to be built on a parking lot on Native American shellmound property. Now the city has to pay the developer $2.6 million -- plus attorneys fees.

In the latest ruling on this emerging topic, an appellate court shot down the San Diego County board's decision to require an EIR for a recycling plant -- even though county's own staff, zoning administrator, and planning commission all said an exemption was warranted.

An unpublished appellate ruling upholding a preliminary injunction in Lake Arrowhead suggests that private entities must define short-term rentals precisely and can't rely on government definitions.

But judge also says that, in the Coastal Zone at least, builder's remedy is overridden by zoning.

You'd think the ADU wars would be over. But in recent court decisions, Malibu lost an attempt to subject an ADU to a coastal development permit, while Coronado succeeded in limiting the combined size of an ADU and the adjacent house.

Whether it's something as big as the State Water Project or as small as tree stumps in Los Angeles, environmentalists aren't winning CEQA cases at the appellate level.

But it was less clear how the justices would instruct local governments about how to apply narrower exaction rules to General Plans.

The ruling came after HCD rejected the city's housing element for a third time. The city's attorney says Beverly Hills is appealing the case and therefore the suspension won't go into effect immediately.

In third unpublished appellate court ruling, justices reject argument that affordable housing will not result and that an alternative site in Marina, 40 miles away, should ahve been considered.

But in a case from Redondo Beach, the L.A. County Superior Court judge also ruled that the vote requirement is pre-empted by state law. 

A property owner who built without a permit claimed the Coastal Commission didn't review the project with objective standards. An appellate court said subjective standards are embedded in the law -- especially with regard to views. 

The Surf City claimed that its 14th Amendment rights were violated by the RHNA process -- and claimed it could sue because it is a charter city and not a "subdivision of the state". A federal judge disagreed.