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
June 12, 2013

Under the Brown Act, a Planning Commission’s Adoption of a CEQA Document is a Distinct Item of Business that Must be Expressly Disclosed on the Agenda

The Ralph M.

 View blog post
Placeholder image
June 2, 2013

Legislature Winnows CEQA Bills

Out of 26 CEQA bills introduced early this year, eight have met the Legislature's May 31 deadline to move from the state Senate to the Assembly or vice versa, and therefore are still considered viable.  (For more details, and an update on these bills, see our June 14 post).  For the most part, these bills w

 View blog post
Placeholder image
May 6, 2013

California Cities and Counties Can “Just Say No” to Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

 The California Supreme Court has unanimously upheld a local ban on medical marijuana dispensaries, holding the ban was not preempted by state statutes governing medical marijuana. The decision does not come as a surprise, given that state court of appeal decisions consistently have upheld local land use regulation of dispensaries. In City of Riverside v. View blog post
Placeholder image
April 30, 2013

D.C. Circuit Upholds Broad EPA Veto Power Over Wetlands Permits

 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act grants the EPA "veto" power over fill permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers.  On April 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. View blog post
Placeholder image
April 29, 2013

Federal Agencies Cannot Use Consent Decrees To Adopt Stricter Regulatory Requirements, According to Ninth Circuit

 Can a district court "approve resolution of litigation involving a federal agency though a consent decree, which substantially and permanently amends regulations that the agency could only otherwise amend by complying with statutory required rulemaking procedures"? View blog post
Placeholder image
April 26, 2013

CEQA Modernization? Not really.

 Steve Kostka, Julie Jones and Barbara Schussman The eagerly-awaited amendments to SB 731, the "CEQA Modernization Bill" have surfaced. The initial iteration of this bill was a placeholder which outlined topics that would be included in later amendments.   As amended on April 23, the bill addresses many of the issues presaged by the initial version, as well as various non-CEQA issues.&n View blog post
Placeholder image
April 25, 2013

Stadium Expansion Project Required EIR Based on Traffic and Parking Impacts

 Perhaps reflecting a north-south division over the importance of a parking space, the Fourth District has held that impacts of a stadium project on parking, together with traffic, necessitated preparation of an EIR.  Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. View blog post
Placeholder image
April 18, 2013

Fracking in California? Not so fast, says federal court

 Friends and foes of fracking in California have, for the most part, fought their battles in the policy and legislative arenas.  But the federal district court in San Jose recently chimed in, striking down four oil and gas leases issued by the Bureau of Land Management for 2,700 acres of federal lands overlying the Monterey Shale Formation.  The court found that the Bureau violated the Na View blog post
Placeholder image
April 10, 2013

If J.R. Wants Your Property, He Can Take It, Even if You’re a Public Benefit Corporation.

 In California, title to property owned by a public entity cannot be acquired through adverse possession.  The same is not true, however, of land owned by a public benefit corporation according to the court in Hagman v. Meher Mount. Corp, No.B239014 (2nd Dist., April 3, 2013).  Larry Hagman (J.R. View blog post
Placeholder image
April 8, 2013

Water Pollution From Utility Poles Doesn't Violate Federal Pollution Control Laws, According to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Is rain water washing over utility poles and carrying wood preservatives into waterways the kind of pollution that violates the Clean Water Act or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act?

No, according to a recent decision by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:

 View blog post
Placeholder image
April 2, 2013

Plan Bay Area: ABAG and MTC Publish Draft EIR

 The Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission today released the Draft Environmental Impact Report on their "Plan Bay Area," a long-range regional planning document proposed to better align future land use planning with the Bay Area's transportation infrastructure. Plan Bay Area implements SB 375, which was enacted in 2008 and requires each of California's View blog post
Placeholder image
April 1, 2013

County Biosolids Ban Halted

 In 2006, the voters of Kern County adopted "Measure E," an initiative which sought to prohibit the use of agricultural fertilizer made from recycled municipal sewage sludge. View blog post
Placeholder image
March 28, 2013

New Significance Standard for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Is Not New Information Triggering Supplemental CEQA Review

 The court of appeal opinion issued today in Concerned Dublin Citizens clearly answers three CEQA questions which haven't been directly addressed in other published opinions: the proper interpretation of the statutory exemption for housing projects that are consistent with a specific plan; how the CEQA guideline on further review following a program EIR should be applied; and whether new a View blog post
Placeholder image
March 22, 2013

NPDES Permit Not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads, Supreme Court Rules

 Do the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations require permits before stormwater runoff from logging roads can be discharged into the navigable waters of the United States? View blog post
Placeholder image
March 21, 2013

Supreme Court Agrees To Review Ninth Circuit NEPA Decision

  On March 18, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the case of United States Forest Service v. View blog post
© 2024 Perkins Coie LLP