Skip to main content
Home
Home

California Land Use & Development Law Report

Real Estate & Land Use, worms eye view of large commercial buildings

California Land Use & Development Law Report

California Land Use & Development Law Report offers insights into legal issues relating to development and use of land and federal, state and local permitting and approval processes. View posts by topic. Subscribe 🡢

Placeholder image

Public Agency Could Validly Accept Dedication After Twenty Years By Physically Occupying the Property

Twenty years was a reasonable period of time for a public agency to accept a right-of-way dedication offer by physically occupying the property. Prout v. Department of Transportation, 31 Cal. App. 5th 200 (2019). Prout developed a 165-acre residential subdivision that fronted State Highway 12 in Calaveras County. View blog post
Placeholder image

29th Annual Briefing on Land Use and Development Law — Materials Available

Perkins Coie attorneys, including regular contributors to this report, recently presented the 29th Annual Land Use & Development Law Briefing in San Francisco, Palo Alto and Walnut Creek. View blog post
Placeholder image

Court Upholds Los Angeles’s Venice Sign-Off Procedure Against Due Process and Coastal Act Challenges

An appellate court held that the City of Los Angeles's procedure for approval or denial of development projects in Venice did not violate residents' due process rights because the procedure was ministerial. View blog post
Placeholder image

CEQA YEAR IN REVIEW -- 2018

A Summary of Published Appellate Opinions Under the California Environmental Quality Act The California Supreme Court issued its only CEQA opinion of 2018 at the end of the year.

View blog post
Placeholder image

Court of Appeal Holds that Petition Challenging Wal-Mart Project is Barred by Earlier Lawsuit Raising the Same Issues

The court of appeal held that the plaintiff's challenge to the City of Rohnert Park's reapproval of a Wal-Mart grocery store was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because a prior proceeding had raised the same issues.  Atwell v. City of Rohnert Park (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.), 27 Cal. App. View blog post
Placeholder image

Court Upholds the City of Los Angeles’s General Plan Amendment for Mixed Use Development Project

The Second District Court of Appeal upheld the City of Los Angeles's General Plan amendment, which changed the land use designation of a proposed project site for a mixed-use development against challenges the decision was prohibited by the City Charter. Westsiders Opposed v. City of Los Angeles, 27 Cal. App. View blog post
Placeholder image

Ninth Circuit Holds that Rent Control Board’s Denial of a Mobile Home Owner’s Request for Rent Increase Is Not an Unconstitutional Taking 

The Ninth Circuit held that the City of Carson's mobile home rent control board's decision not to factor in debt service increases in its adjustment of a rental rate for a mobile home park did not result in a regulatory taking of the mobile home park owner's property. Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 888 F.3d 445 (9th Cir. View blog post
Placeholder image

Supreme Court To Decide If CEQA Review Is Required For Well Permits.

The Supreme Court of California has granted review of two cases to resolve a split among courts of appeal over whether the issuance of well permits pursuant to state standards is subject to CEQA. California Water Impact Network v. County of San Luis Obispo and Protecting Our Water & Environmental Resources v. View blog post
Placeholder image

Further Environmental Review Required for Fracking Off California Coast

A federal court has prohibited the U.S. Department of the Interior from approving any plans or permits for hydraulic fracturing off the California coast until it complies with the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Endangered Species Act. Environmental Defense Center v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, No. 16-cv-8418, 2018 WL 5919096 (C.D. Cal. Nov. View blog post
Placeholder image

Agency May Take Over Preparation of the Record in a CEQA Case if the Petitioners Unreasonable Delays Preparing It

Where a petitioner in a CEQA case has elected to prepare the administrative record but unreasonably delays such preparation, the defendant agency may prepare the record itself and be awarded costs for doing so.  LandWatch San Luis Obispo Co. v. Cambria Comm. Serv. Dist., 25 Cal. App. View blog post
Placeholder image

New Guidelines for Assessing Transportation Impacts Under CEQA Finalized

The California Natural Resources Agency has adopted new CEQA Guidelines that will leave behind level of service in favor of vehicle miles traveled. Following years of development and public comment, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the Natural Resources Agency have issued new CEQA Guidelines for analyzing transportation impacts.  These new regulations represent View blog post
Placeholder image

Aesthetic and Traffic Issues in Historic Overlay District Necessitate EIR

A court of appeal has overturned a city's mitigated negative declaration for a small mixed-use development in a historic overlay district, holding that aesthetic and traffic issues require the preparation of an environmental impact report. Protect Niles v. City of Fremont, 25 Cal. App. View blog post
Placeholder image

New State Density Bonus for Student Housing Takes Effect

As of January 1, State law offers a new density bonus to qualifying student housing developments. View blog post
Placeholder image

School District’s Fee Study Did Not Contain the Information Necessary to Lawfully Impose Development Fees

The Sixth District Court of Appeal invalidated a school district's Level 1 development fee because the underlying fee study did not properly calculate anticipated growth and included the cost of hypothetical new schools that the district had no plans to build.  View blog post
Placeholder image

California Supreme Court Sets Standard for Air Quality Impact Analyses Under CEQA

The California Supreme Court has overturned the environmental impact report for a mixed-use development project, holding that the EIR inadequately explained the human health consequences of significant air pollutant emissions that would result from the development.  View blog post
Home
Jump back to top