Contact Information
San Bernardino Office
550 E. Hospitality Lane
Suite 300
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Tel: (909) 890-4499
Fax: (909) 890-9877

Practice Areas

  • Land Use
  • Litigation


  • B.A. UCLA, 1987

  • J.D. Pepperdine School of Law, 1995


  • Orange County Asian American Bar Association
  • Orange County Bar Association





Keli Osaki has extensive experience representing project applicants and public agencies during all phases of litigation, including appeals, with a focus on issues arising under the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Planning and Zoning Law and initiative and referendum law as they relate to land use matters. Keli also provides her clients with oversight to ensure that environmental review and development approvals are legally defensible. In addition to land use litigation, Keli has over 20 years of a wide range of real estate and business litigation experience.


  • California Women’s Leadership Association
  • Pepperdine Alumni Affairs


  • Recipient of 2009 ACLU Religious Liberty Award. Keli obtained land use approvals for a Buddhist congregation in Garden Grove through a settlement agreement after a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against the city pursuant to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 
  • Pepperdine Law Review, Senior Staff Member 1993-1995

Representative Matters

  • CREED-21 v. City of Wildomar – Represented developer in a CEQA challenge to a superstore project. The Court of Appeal upheld terminating sanctions against the petitioner based on its flagrant violations of discovery on the issue of whether petitioner had standing to bring its lawsuit. (2017)
  • Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange – Represented developer. The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the developer finding that spot zoning can be found where an isolated parcel is zoned either more or less restrictively than surrounding property. The Court further found that Orange County’s rezoning decision was supported by sufficient evidence and was thus not unlawful spot zoning. (2014)
  • Habitat Trust for Wildlife Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga – Represented developers. The Court of Appeal rejected petitioners’ claims that the city, developers and San Bernardino County had collaborated to deny the environmental groups’ right to own the subject property. In so doing, the court held that there was nothing improper about the city’s method of deciding who could own mitigation land; that the environmental groups had no constitutional right to the land; and that the developers had not breached a contract they had with the groups. The court also upheld an award of $954,000 in attorney fees and legal costs to the developers. (2009)
  • Hernandez v. Town of Apple Valley – Represented developer. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s holding that a retail developer’s Initiative Measure (“Initiative”) to create a Specific Plan violated Article 2, Section 12 of the California Constitution. The Appellate Court ruled that that the Initiative did not violate the state constitution prohibiting naming any “private corporation to perform any function or to have any power or duty,” even though the subject property was owned by a single developer that was a private corporation and was familiar to the electorate, where the Initiative did not specify the name of the developer, and the Initiative would grant the same rights to any new developer or owner if the property was sold. (2017)


Download PDF

San Bernardino, CA
550 E. Hospitality Lane
Suite 300
San Bernardino, CA 92408

T 909-890-4499
F 909-890-9877

San Diego, CA
401 West A Street
Suite 925
San Diego, CA 92101

T 619-794-0050
F 619-615-2180