CP&DR

Beachfront House Bypasses Coastal Commission

Feb 2, 2009

Coastal development, CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Los Angeles County, Vol. 24 No. 02 Feb 2009

A decision by the Coastal Commission not to intervene in a dispute between Malibu property owners was upheld by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court affirmed the Commission's refusal to conduct a hearing on a proposed beachfront house that was approved by the City of Malibu but opposed by the next door neighbors. The court also found that a State Lands Commission failure to investigate the project's potential impact on public tidelands was not enough to disturb the city's approval.

Coastal Commission Fenced Out In Torrance

Feb 2, 2009

Coastal development, CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Los Angeles County, Vol. 24 No. 02 Feb 2009

The Coastal Commission has no jurisdiction over a fence at the base of a coastal bluff in Torrance because a 1988 boundary agreement among state entities and landowners authorized the fence, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled.

Landowner Loses Big Sur House Battle

Feb 2, 2009

Coastal development, CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Monterey County, Vol. 24 No. 02 Feb 2009

In the latest installment in a feud between neighboring Big Sur property owners, the Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled that the Coastal Commission did not make the proper findings for approving a house in an environmentally sensitive area.

Economic Woes May Capsize Ambitious Plan For Queen Mary

Jan 30, 2009

Coastal development, Josh Stephens, Los Angeles County, Redevelopment Watch, Vol. 24 No. 02 Feb 2009

After 76 years afloat, the RMS Queen Mary surely still draws stares from the cargo ship crews that call at the Port of Long Beach, where the Queen remains one of Southern California's more incongruous tourist attractions. Having sailed the North Atlantic under the Cunard flag, the ship has, since 1968, served simultaneously as a hotel, museum, event venue, and elegant icon for an otherwise working-class Southern California port city.

Coastal Commission Jurisdiction Upheld After Landowner Delays Challenge

Dec 30, 2008

Coastal development, CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Los Angeles County, Vol. 24 No. 01 Jan 2009

A property owner cannot participate in a California Coastal Commission appeal process for years and then assert that the Commission was prohibited from considering the appeal because it missed a procedural deadline years earlier, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court rejected a Pacific Palisades landowner's contention that the Commission had lost jurisdiction over an appeal of the landowner's three-lot development because the Commission did not conduct a hearing within 49 days of receiving an appeal in 1999.

Pacifica Developer Loses Yet Again

Dec 29, 2008

Coastal development, CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, San Mateo County, Vol. 24 No. 01 Jan 2009

A state appellate court has upheld the Coastal Commission's handling of a housing project appeal. The court ruled that although the Commission did not comply precisely with the state open meeting law's requirements, the Commission came close enough and did not portray an intent to avoid the law.

High Court Says Coastal Commission Can't Reach Inland Part Of Project

Jun 1, 2005

Coastal development, CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Los Angeles County, Vol. 20 No. 06 Jun 2005

When a development project straddles the coastal zone boundary, the Coastal Commission may not use its jurisdiction over the portion of the project within the coastal zone to influence development outside of the zone, the state Supreme Court has ruled.

Hearing Delay Causes Coastal Commission To Lose Jurisdiction Over Project

Jul 1, 2003

Coastal development, CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, San Diego County, Vol. 18 No. 07 Jul 2003

The California Coastal Commission lost its jurisdiction over development of a proposed elementary school in Encinitas because the Commission did not determine within 49 days whether a "substantial issue" existed, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The ruling appears to knock down a practice in which the Commission within 49 days of receiving an appeal sets a later hearing date without addressing any of the issues.

No Taking, Says State High Court: Justices Overrule Appeal Court In Malibu Coast Case

Jun 1, 1998

Coastal development, Larry Sokoloff, Legal Digest, Los Angeles County, Vol. 13 No. 06 Jun 1998

In an important decision on taking law, a divided California Supreme Court has ruled that a temporary taking did not occur when an erroneous decision by the California Coastal Commission delayed a property owner's plans to build a house in Malibu. The case is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Articles