A 2002 appellate court decision that subjected a proposed water treatment plant to local zoning and building ordinances appears to be on shaky ground.
The state Supreme Court had accepted for review the Sixth District Court of Appeal's ruling in Topsail Court Homeowners Association v. County of Santa Cruz (see CP&DR Legal Digest, April 2002). However, in late March, the state Supreme Court transferred the case back to the Sixth District, directing the appellate panel to reconsider the case in light of legislation approved last year.
That legislation, SB 1711 (Costa), was written in direct response to the Sixth District's ruling in Topsail. The Sixth District had declined to exempt a proposed water treatment plant from local land use ordinances because the exemption in the Government Code specified only "facilities for the production, generation, storage or transmission of water" — and did not specify the treatment of water.
The decision came in a case in which a small group of residents was trying to block the Soquel Creek Water District from buying a parcel in their subdivision and building a water treatment plant. The ruling "has thrown existing understanding of the law into turmoil," according to a state Senate bill analysis.
The state Supreme Court voted unanimously to send the case back to the Sixth District with directions to reconsider — a small step short of ordering the lower court to abandon its earlier decision.
The case is Topsail Court Homeowners Association v. County of Santa Cruz, state Supreme Court No. S104952, Sixth District Court of Appeal No. H022122.
A developer's lawsuit alleging that the City of Wasco breached a development agreement by withdrawing funding for infrastructure is not subject to the statute of limitations in the Subdivision Map Act, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The court ruled that the dispute was over an interpretation of the development agreement, which was not an action arising out of the Subdivision Map Act.
A city may prohibit or regulate a boarding house with at least three tenants in a low-density residential zone, according to a state Attorney General's opinion.
"[P]reserving the residential character of a neighborhood is a legitimate government purpose that may be reasonably achieved by prohibiting commercial enterprises such as operating a boarding house business," Deputy Attorney General Anthony DaVigo wrote.
A developer's lawsuit that claimed the San Diego Unified Port District and one of its commissioners conspired to kill the developer's proposed waterfront project has been thrown out as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).
A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court's decision to remove a special master who had been appointed to oversee redevelopment of an industrial site in Union City. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also upheld a court order capping the former special master's compensation and ordering him to repay $113,000.
Claims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit.
The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law "plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court."
A state appellate court has upheld the California Coastal Commission's denial of a development permit for a small mixed-use project in Morro Bay.
The court rejected developer Dan Reddell's arguments that the commission violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that its decision was a regulatory taking of property. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that substantial evidence supported the commission's finding that Reddell's project was inconsistent with Morro Bay's local coastal plan (LCP).
A state appellate court has thrown out an Inyo County general plan amendment that the county argued was nothing more than a clarification of a longstanding policy.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, concluded that the amendment was more than a mere clarification and that the county should have completed an environmental impact report before approving the amendment.
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 Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set back a plan to develop the country's largest solid waste landfill near Joshua Tree National Park. The court ruled that the environmental analysis for the project was inadequate and that the Bureau of Land Management undervalued land it would provide to the landfill developer.
A state appellate court has struck down a California Environmental Quality Act exemption for an air district rule permitting new power plants to offset emissions by paving roads. The court found that the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District did not have adequate evidence to support its finding that the rule could not have a negative impact on the environment.
A developer is not entitled to reimbursement or damages from a consultant hired by a local government to complete an environmental impact report, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. Even when the consultant fails to complete an EIR in a timely manner, the consultant owes no contractual duty to the developer that paid for the consultant, the court concluded.
In the first decision of its kind, a divided Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel has declared that the City of Goleta's mobile home rent control ordinance constitutes a regulatory taking.
