Skip to main content
Home
Home

California Land Use & Development Law Report

tree in grassy meadow

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.

Placeholder image
August 26, 2016

Neighbors’ Personal Stake In Preserving Local Parking Regulations Precluded Finding Of Public Interest

Neighbors who were suing to maintain existing neighborhood parking regulations were pursuing their own personal interests and did not qualify for the public interest exception from the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute. Because their Brown Act claim had no merit, it was properly dismissed as an anti-SLAPP suit. View blog post
Placeholder image
August 24, 2016

General Plan’s Size Ranges for Shopping Centers a “Flexible” Policy, Not a Rigid Mandate

The City of Modesto's General Plan includes a policy providing that certain neighborhoods "should" include a "7-9 acre neighborhood shopping center, containing 60,000 to 100,000 square feet." The Fifth District Court of Appeal upheld against challenge the city's determination that development of an approximately 170,000 square foot shopping center on about 18 acres in one such neighborhood would b View blog post
Placeholder image
August 22, 2016

EIR’s Energy Impacts Analysis Fails To Satisfy CEQA’s Requirements 

Background

In Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah, 248 Cal.App.4th 256 (2016) the First District Court of Appeal concluded that the City of Ukiah's EIR for a proposed Costco failed to satisfy CEQA's requirements for evaluating energy impacts.

View blog post
Placeholder image
August 17, 2016

Loss of View is Not a Taking, Even in Beverly Hills

The mere loss of a homeowners' unobstructed view, without any physical intrusion onto their properties, does not constitute a compensable taking. Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills, 246 Cal. App. View blog post
Placeholder image
August 16, 2016

Failure to Discover An Agency’s Approval Of An Exempt Project Does Not Extend The Time To File CEQA Lawsuit

The First District Court of Appeal has ruled that the accrual of a claim that a public agency exemption determination violated CEQA is not postponed by the plaintiff's failure to discover the violation. Communities for a Better Environment et al. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, No. View blog post
Placeholder image
July 28, 2016

General Plan Sustainability Requirements Doom Wal-Mart Project

Finding a variety of legal errors, including failure to comply with a city policy requiring on-site electricity generation "to the maximum extent feasible," a court of appeal has overturned the City of Victorville's approvals View blog post
Placeholder image
July 24, 2016

Public/Private Partnerships: New Guidance on Designating the CEQA Lead Agency

With public/private partnerships becoming more common, a California appellate court has outlined – with a new test – how to determine the CEQA lead agency for a project in which a private entity partners with multiple public agencies. Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (G051058) 4th Dist., May 10, 2016. Cadiz, Inc. View blog post
Placeholder image
July 11, 2016

Fish and Wildlife Service Agrees to Deadline for Monarch Butterfly Listing Decision

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has agreed to decide by June 30, 2019, whether to list the monarch butterfly under the Endangered Species Act. View blog post
Placeholder image
July 11, 2016

How Developers Can Help Save the Monarch Butterfly (and Why They Should)

The monarch butterfly is heading quickly towards extinction for a simple reason: it does not have enough food to eat on its migration path. [caption id="attachment_5171" align="aligncenter" width="666"] A Monarch Butterfly fee View blog post
Placeholder image
July 1, 2016

Court of Appeal Rejects Claim That Sustainable Communities Strategies May Rely on Statewide GHG Reduction Mandates

The First District Court of Appeal has upheld the San Francisco Bay Area's Sustainable Communities Strategy.  The court rejected  the claim that such strategies  must account for the effects of statewide greenhouse gas reduction mandates. Bay Area Citizens v. View blog post
Placeholder image
July 1, 2016

Quieting title to groundwater rights does not necessarily require quantification of prescriptive losses

The Sixth District Court of Appeal has ruled that a judgment quieting title to overlying rights to groundwater in times of basin surplus does not require quantification of the specific amount of prescriptive rights that may previously have been established against each overlying landowner.  View blog post
Placeholder image
June 23, 2016

Indian Gaming Act and NEPA Irreconcilable, Ninth Circuit Rules

The Ninth Circuit has held that the National Indian Gaming Commission's approval of a tribal gaming ordinance does not require review under the National Environmental Policy Act because there is an irreconcilable conflict between NEPA and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.  View blog post
Placeholder image
June 13, 2016

Fish and Wildlife Service Reissues 30-Year Eagle Take Rule

As we previously reported, in August 2015, a U.S. District Court in San Francisco nullified the U.S. View blog post
Placeholder image
June 1, 2016

County Board May Not Take Actions That Implement Essential Feature of a Referended Ordinance

When a referendum petition is presented against an ordinance and the board of supervisors decides to "entirely repeal the ordinance" rather than present it to the voters, the board must revoke the challenged ordinance in its entirety and may not take additional action that has the practical effect of implementing the essential feature of the ordinance. View blog post
Placeholder image
June 1, 2016

Wetlands Jurisdictional Determinations are Final Agency Actions Subject to Immediate Judicial Review

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a wetlands jurisdictional determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act is a final agency action subject to judicial review.  Hawkes Co., Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 578 U.S. View blog post
Home
Jump back to top