Legal Opinion
City of Malibu v. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 13, 2002No. B151606PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GILBERT, P. J.
Here we hold that the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy is subject to local land use regulation. (Pub. Resources Code, § 33008.)
Appellant City of Malibu (City) seeks to regulate commercial uses on 22 acres of property within its boundaries owned by respondent Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (Conservancy), a state agency. It filed an action to obtain a declaration that the Conservancy is not immune from local regulation and an injunction to prohibit commercial use of the property until an alleged violation of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Pub. Resources Code, §…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- DeVita v. County of NapaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Fuentes v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Beverly Oil Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- City of Lafayette v. East Bay Municipal Utility DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa CruzCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008
- Robings v. Santa Monica Mountains ConservancyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa CruzCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- California Attorney General Opinion 24-1101, California Attorney General Reports2026
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.