Legal Digest

The First District Court of Appeal has upheld the EIR supporting a $1.5 billion development plan for Treasure Island, the man-made former World's Fair site at the middle of the San Francisco Bay Bridge. >>read more

California's Fifth District Court of Appeal has issued a partial publication order for its June 30 decision upholding the EIR for a wind turbine farm in Kern County's Tehachapi Wind Resource Area. >>read more

The First District Court of Appeal has argued that Humbolt County did not create a taking of property by requiring the owners of a mobile home underneath an airport flight path to provide an overflight easement in exchange for a permit to build a carport and porch that had been illegally built by the previous owners of the property. >>read more

Reversing the decision of an Orange County Superior Court judge, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled that rezoning residential property in Tustin to accommodate an assisted living facility is a legitimate use of spot zoning.

"The creation of the new senior residential housing zoning district and its application to the Project site were in the public interest and were not arbitrary or capricious," wrote Justice Richard Fybel for a unanimous three-judge panel. >>read more

If the oral argument is any indication, the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to rule against a landowner in Florida who filed a takings lawsuit against an Orlando-area water district - turning what appeared to be an easy victory for property rights advocates into a loss. >>read more

The Fourth District Court of Appeal has upheld the City of Newport Beach's environmental impact report for the Banning Ranch development, rejecting a challenge by a local conservancy which asserted piecemeal environmental review and the adequacy of the impacts of a park the city is building adjacent to Banning Ranch. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment and denial of the writ. >>read more

In many situations, the settlement of a lawsuit is a flexible tool to resolve disagreements between parties and allow the participants to move on with their lives. A settlement with a public agency invokes slightly different considerations then a matter resolved exclusively through private parties. As previously noted in Trancas Property Owners Association v. City of Malibu (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 172, a public agency cannot rely upon a settlement agreement to bypass a required land use approval step. >>read more

In case you missed the recent legal tremor, be advised that land-use lawyers are looking closely at a new appellate court ruling from Tuolomne County on the application of the California Environmental Quality Act to citizen initiatives. The new ruling is in direct conflict to a ruling from a different appellate district in 2004, possibly setting the stage for a showdown in front of the California Supreme Court. >>read more

When deciding whether to award a public litigant its attorneys' fees against another public entity under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the trial court may only consider the public litigant's "pecuniary interests and the pecuniary interests of its constituents" in determining the third requirement of that statute.  The court may not consider the nonpecuniary motives of the public litigant in bringing the lawsuit. >>read more

California State University East Bay undertook a dual-purpose environmental impact report for its campus master plan and two construction projects, meant to enable the campus to grow from roughly 12,000 to 18,000 students in the next 30 years. The construction projects consisted of a housing complex and a parking structure. The EIR included alternatives at both the master plan and construction project level. >>read more

As California seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state's industries in order to implement provisions of California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32), entities and trade groups both inside and outside the state have looked to the "dormant" Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution as a legal means to challenge those efforts. The dormant clause implies that states cannot take actions that would, implicitly or explicitly, restrict interstate commerce - such as when California legally compels residents to consume less fuel. >>read more

In Quail Lakes Owners Assn. v. Kozina, the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District affirmed a trial court's decision to grant a verified petition by a homeowners' association for an order under Civil Code section 1356. The petition asked to modify the association's governing laws to reduce a supermajority voting restriction. >>read more