CP&DR

Army Corps of Engineers' Removal of Piers at Oakland is Upheld

Jul 1, 2000

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Vol. 15 No. 07 Jul 2000

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had the authority to remove two dilapidated piers in Oakland Harbor to make room for port expansion, and then bill the pier owner for the removal, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. The Ninth Circuit made clear that the Corps of Engineers has broad authorities under the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. §403, and the Commerce Clause of the constitution. The ruling was another loss for the pier's owners, Alameda Gateway Ltd. ...

Project Opponents Lose for Not Following Appeal Process

Jul 1, 2000

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Vol. 15 No. 07 Jul 2000

An appellate court has ruled against a citizens group that had protested Placer County's handling of an application for a 22-unit lodge at Lake Tahoe. The Third District Court of Appeal ruled that the citizens group had no standing to bring a lawsuit based on alleged violations of the California Environmental Quality Act because the group did not seek county Board of Supervisors' review of the negative declaration approved by the Planning Commission. The unanimous three-judge panel rejected the ...

Lake Tahoe Property Owners Lose Takings Fight: Ninth Circuit Terms Temporary Moratorium a ‘Crucial Mechanism'

Jul 1, 2000

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Vol. 15 No. 07 Jul 2000

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Lake Tahoe landowners who claimed that temporary building moratoriums and regional land use plans amounted to unconstitutional takings of their property. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency was not liable for a taking when it imposed a 32-month building moratorium during the early 1980s. The court also held TRPA was not liable for a taking when a court blocked implementation of a 1984 Regional Plan. Finally, ...

U.S. Supreme Court: BLM Rangeland Grazing Rules Withstand Ranchers' Challenge

Jun 1, 2000

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Vol. 15 No. 06 Jun 2000

In a case watched closely by ranchers and environmentalists, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld 1995 grazing regulations for public lands, including about 6.7 million acres in California controlled by the Bureau of Land Management. Ranchers challenged Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's power to impose the new rules, which ranchers said would raise their expenses and threaten their livestock businesses. But a unanimous Supreme Court, interpreting the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act, 43 U.S.C. §315, said ...

Subdivison Map Act: City Wins Despite Regarding Postponed Off-Site Improvements

Jun 1, 2000

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Vol. 15 No. 06 Jun 2000

A Subdivision Map Act provision that gives local government a maximum of 120 days to acquire an interest in land upon which a subdivider is obligated to build improvements applies only in cases where the improvements are a condition of final map approval, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has ruled. A developer in the City of Clovis contended that such a narrow reading of Government Code §66462.5 would place an undue burden on the subdivider because a city could wait decades before acquiring of...

Court Clamps Down on Redevelopment Abuse: DIamond Bar Project Rejected When City Fails to Prove Blight

Jun 1, 2000

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Vol. 15 No. 06 Jun 2000

Making clear that the Community Redevelopment Law "is not simply a vehicle for cash-strapped municipalities to finance community improvements," an appellate court has thrown out the City of Diamond Bar's redevelopment plan. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that Diamond Bar did not prove that its 1,300-acre redevelopment project area suffered from "blight," as defined by the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code §§33000 et seq., 33030). The...

Rent Control: Nine Month Residents Win Protection of Santa Cruz County Ordinance

Jun 1, 2000

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Vol. 15 No. 06 Jun 2000

A county's mobilehome rent control ordinance applies for people who live in recreational vehicles for at least nine continuous months, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court said that Santa Cruz County's Mobilehome Rent Adjustment Ordinance applies to about 20 sites in a travel trailer and resort facility because residents of those sites have lived there continuously for nine months or more. The controversy began when Willows Resort owner Harold Griffith eliminated central g...

General Plans: El Dorado County Environmentalists Might Gain Attorneys' Fees Yet

Jun 1, 2000

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Vol. 15 No. 06 Jun 2000

A citizens group and an environmental organization do have a right to attorneys' fees in successful litigation regarding El Dorado County's handling of a large subdivision, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. However, the court tempered that right by saying that the aesthetic protections won by the groups and their members should be a factor in the awarding of fees. In other words, because they gained aesthetic protections, the groups might not get as much in attorneys' fees as they wou...

Rent Control: Path Cleared for Mobilehome Park Owners in Federal Court

Jun 1, 2000

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Vol. 15 No. 06 Jun 2000

Mobilehome park owners in the City of Montclair can proceed with a federal lawsuit alleging that the city's rent control law is a regulatory taking, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. A federal district court had dismissed the lawsuit filed by mobilehome park owners because a similar suit was making its way through the state court system (see CP&DR Legal Digest January, 2000). However, the litigation ended early this year when the state Supreme Court refused to review an appell...

Rent Control: Santa Monica Ordinance Can't Supercede State Law, Court Rules

Jun 1, 2000

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Vol. 15 No. 06 Jun 2000

Portions of Santa Monica's rent control law have been thrown out by an appellate court because the provisions conflicted with state law. The Second District Court of Appeal said Santa Monica could not modify conditions established by state law under which landlords can increase rents for voluntarily vacated units, and the city cannot demand more information than state law requires when registering rent-controlled units. In reviewing the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 (Civ. Code §1954.50), th...

Articles