The Week in Land Law - Coastal Commission requirements upheld, 9th Circuit rejects environmental challenge to immigration policies, and PG&E will underground 10,000 miles of power lines
This was a quiet week for land law. It brought us an appellate decision upholding the Coastal Commission’s setback requirements and basement prohibitions on a blufftop property, a 9th Circuit rejection of an environmental challenge to immigration policies, and an announcement from PG&E that the company plans to underground 10,000 miles of power lines in high fire areas.
Case Law
Martin v. California Coastal Commission. Fourth District, Div. One, Case No. D076956. The Court of Appeal delivered a victory to the Coastal Commission, upholding conditions imposed on a blufftop development project.
Landowners appealed from a judgment entered after the trial court granted in part and denied in part their petition for writ of administrative mandate challenging the imposition of certain special conditions placed on the development of their property—a vacant, oceanfront lot in Encinitas—by the California Coastal Commission. The Commission also appealed the judgment.
The Martins’ appeal challenged a condition requiring them to eliminate a basement from their proposed home, while the Commission challenged the trial court’s reversal of its condition requiring the Martins to set back their home 79 feet from the bluff edge.
Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s invalidation of the Commission’s setback requirement and affirmed the court’s decision to uphold the basement prohibition.
Whitewater Draw Natural Resource Conservation District v. Mayorkas A 9th Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in an action brought by plaintiff organizations and individuals alleging that the Secretary violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) by failing to consider the environmental impacts of various immigration programs and immigration-related policies.
The 9th Circuit concluded plaintiffs cannot challenge DHS’s actions under NEPA or the APA.
DHS’ 2015 Instruction Manual did not constitute final agency action subject to review under Administrative Procedure Act §704. The manual did not make any decision, rather it merely established the procedures for ensuring DHS’s compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act; and the manual also did not impose new legal requirements or alter the legal regime to which DHS was subject.
The rule from Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation foreclosed judicial review of DHS’s non-Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival programs where the plaintiffs’ challenge to the programs was indistinguishable from the broad programmatic attack at issue in National Wildlife.
Other News:
PG&E announces major new electric infrastructure safety initiative to protect communities from wildfire threat; Undergrounding 10,000 miles of power lines in highest fire-threat areas.
