Real Estate, Land Use and Environmental Law Blog - Up-to-date information on Real Estate, Land Use and Environmental Law

Hines v. California Coastal Commission, No. A125254 (1st Dist. June 17, 2010)

By Michael Wilmar and Alex Merritt

In Hines v. California Coastal Commission, the First District Court of Appeal upheld the Coastal Commission’s determination that an appeal raised no substantial issue under the California Coastal Act, and went so far as to state in dicta that even if a development were technically inconsistent with a Local Coastal Program ("LCP"), the Commission could still reject an appeal of the approval of that development as not presenting a substantial issue.

City of Santee v. County of San Diego, No. D055310 (4th Dist. June 7, 2010)

By Michael Wilmar and Alex Merritt

Last month the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District provided important guidance on the issue of when approval of an agreement affecting a development constitutes approval of a “project” that requires review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). In City of Santee v. County of San Diego, the Fourth District held that a siting agreement between the County of San Diego and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("DCR") for a state prison facility did not commit the County to a definite course of action, and therefore did not constitute a project approval requiring CEQA review. The court reached this conclusion after noting that the agreement did not preclude any alternatives or mitigation measures, and that implementation of the agreement was contingent on a number of factors, including future environmental review.

Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, et al., 560 U. S. _(June 17, 2010)

By Michael Wilmar & Aaron Kleven

On June 17, 2010, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the State of Florida did not infringe on private property interests by engaging in a beach preservation effort. But though the participating justices agreed on the decision (Justice Stevens did not participate), they disagreed sharply on a point of constitutional law underlying the complaint.

Home Builders Ass'n of Tulare/Kings Counties v. City of Lemoore, No. 07C0185 (5th Dist. June 9, 2010)

By David Lanferman

On June 9, 2010, a panel of the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District rejected challenges by a builders association to six out of seven "development fees" recently adopted by the City of Lemoore. The Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000 – 66025) requires that a local agency seeking to establish or impose development fees to finance public facilities must "identify" the new public facilities purportedly justifying the fees. Two justices held that the City had satisfied these statutory requirements by adopting a consultant's report that listed examples of the "types" of new facilities that the City may in the future decide to construct to accommodate growth from new developments, but the third justice wrote separately to question whether such lack of specificity complied with the statute.

Walgreen Co. v. City and County of San Francisco, No. A123891 (June 8, 2010)

By Brenna Moorhead

Walgreen Co. prevailed against the City and County of San Francisco in California court and can proceed with its challenge to San Francisco’s ordinance banning the sale of tobacco products at certain retail establishments that contain a pharmacy. San Francisco defined "pharmacy" as "a retail establishment in which the profession of pharmacy by a [licensed] pharmacist is practiced and where prescription drugs are offered for sale." The prohibition applied to a store as a whole, even if the licensed pharmacy was situated within a larger store selling other merchandise. Thus, the ordinance would have included drugstores, grocery stores, chain stores, supermarkets, and big box stores that contain a pharmacy. However, San Francisco elected to exclude general grocery stores and big box stores.

Beutz v. County of Riverside, No. RIC457351 (4th Dist. May 26, 2010)

By David Lanferman & Michael Cato

In Beutz v. County of Riverside, No. RIC457351 (4th Dist. May 26, 2010), the California Court of Appeal held that a special assessment imposed by the County of Riverside was invalid because the engineer's report commissioned by the County failed to separate and quantify the general and special benefits to be realized from the public parks that were the subject of the special assessment district. By failing to both separate and quantify the general and special benefits, the agency failed to satisfy its two-part constitutional burden.

By Claudia Gutierrez

The Alameda County Superior Court recently invalidated the housing cap in a voter-approved measure limiting the number of residences that could be built in the City of Pleasanton, California. The court also noted that the City's planning process, as well as its planning documents, were flawed and inadequate in multiple ways. Continue Reading Questions & comments

By Claudia Gutierrez

Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District et al. ___Cal.__) (March 15, 2010; Case No. S161190)

In this case, the Supreme Court of California held that neither the statute of limitations, the principles of vested rights, nor the CEQA case law on which ConocoPhillips relied, justified employing the maximum capacity allowed under prior equipment permits as an analytical baseline for a new project, rather than the physical conditions actually existing at the time of the analysis. The court therefore concluded that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (District) abused its discretion in determining ConocoPhillips' proposed project would have no significant environmental effects compared to a baseline of maximum permitted capacity. Continue Reading Questions & comments