|
Your path: Home) Archive Page) Subjects) Topics) Land Use
|
|
Adverse Possession |
December 2009: Third District Finds Absence and Incompetence of Landowner Insufficient to Defeat Adverse Possession Claim Nielsen v. Gibson, ___Cal.App.4th___ C059291, (3rd Dist. Oct. 13, 2009) |
March 2009: Colorado Supreme Court Imposes New Quantification Requirement for the Adverse Possession of Water Rights Archuleta v. Gomez 08SA109 (Colo. Jan. 20, 2009) |
July 2008: Massachusetts Appellate Court Confirms Homeowner’s Right to Assert Exclusive Ownership and Control of Beach Nancy J. Houghton & Others v. Linda Jean Johnson, Trustee 06-P-1400 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008, May 30) | |
May 2006: Connecticut Landowner Obtains Prescriptive Easement over Neighboring Parcel for Access to Long Island Sound Ruotolo v. Esposition 26072 (Ct.App. Mar. 21, 2006) | |
April 2005: Is the Grass Really Greener on the Other Side? A Primer on Property Boundary Disputes for the Land Use Practitioner | |
August 2004: Encroachers Beware: The Sun Is Setting on the Wild West Doctrine of Adverse Possession | |
May 2004: Second Appellate District Holds That Adverse Possession May Not Masquerade as a Prescriptive Easement Kapner v. Meadowlark Ranch Ass’n ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. B163525 (2nd Dist. March 17, 2004). | |
November 2003: New Mexico Court of Appeals Holds Water Rights Cannot Be Acquired By Adverse Possession Turner v. Bassett Case No. 22,877 (N.M. App. Sept. 23, 2003). |
|
|
Aesthetics |
|
|
|
Agricultural Easements |
|
|
|
Agricultural Property |
April 2010: Taps Shut on Feinstein Bill, But More Water May Be on the Way | |
March 2008: Colorado ‘Super Ditch Company’—A Lower Arkansas Valley Effort to Preserve Agricultural Water Rights | |
April 2007: Federal Plan Advances to Address Salinity Drainage Issues in the Western San Joaquin Valley | |
December 2006: Third District Court of Appeal Upholds Placer County’s CEQA Finding that a Mining Operation Has a Sufficient Water Supply Western Placer Citizens for an Agricultural and Rural Environment v. County of Placer (Teichert, Inc.), ___Cal.App.4th___ C049364 (3rd Dist. Nov. 9, 2006) | |
December 2005: 2005 Land use Legislation Wrap Up | |
November 2005: Land use legislation | |
December 2004: Legislative update | |
August 2004: Fourth District Upholds Irvine’s Certification of Program EIR for General Plan Amendment andZone Change Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Association v. Terifa 33 Cal.4th 73 (Cal. 2004) | |
July 2004: World Trade Organization Panel Concludes that United States Cotton Subsidies May Violate International Trade Rules. | |
June 2004: Keeping Them Down On the Farm—Recent Trends In Williamson Act Legislation |
April 2004: Minnesota Court Affirms Summary Judgment for Defendants against Claim of Harm to Bees from Application of Insecticide Anderson v. State of Minnesota 674 N.W.2d 748 (Minn. App. Feb. 17, 2004). | |
November 2003: Water and Wine: Regulation of Vineyard and Winery Development and Operation in California’s North Coast Counties | |
June 2003: Abuse of Discretion Standard Upheld as Appropriate for EIR Review under CEQA Association of Irritated Residents, et al. v. County of Madera, et al. 107 Cal.App.4th 1383 (5th Cir. 2003). | |
October 2002: Agriculture Activity Protection Statute Bars Suit Against Farmer who Engages in Activities Constituting a Nuisance — Even if the Suit is Pleaded in Trespass Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Tres Amigos Viejos, LLC 100 Cal.App.4th 550 (4th Dist.July 25,2002). | |
August 2002: As California Awaits Adoption of a 2002-03 Budget, Subvention Funding for the Williamson Act Program Remains Up in the Air |
|
|
Airport Land |
|
May 2010: First District Upholds Trial Court Ruling that City’s Approval of General Plan Update Violated State Aeronautics Act and CEQA Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville, ___Cal. App.4th___ A122205 (1st Dist. April 12, 2010) | |
March 2010: California Senate Bill 481: A Safe Landing for Endangered Birds, but Not for Aircraft | |
February 2010: California Supreme Court Holds County’s Decision to Deny Application to Renew Conditional Use Permit for a Privately Owned Airport Was Not a ‘Project’ under CEQA Sunset Sky Ranch Pilots Association v. County of Sacramento, ___Cal.4th___ S165861 (Dec. 28, 2009) | |
October 2009: Second District Reaffirms Voter Adoption of Initiative Amending County’s General Plan to Permit Mixed Use Development Near an Airport Citizens for Planning Responsibly v. County of San Luis Obispo, ___Cal.App.4th___ B206957 (2nd Dist. Aug. 4, 2009) | |
December 2008: 2008 Year-end review of select land use legislation | |
December 2008: District Court Holds Town May Not Regulate Airport Construction under Wetlands Ordinance as It Violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause Tweed-New Haven Airport Authority v. Town of East Haven, Connecticut 3:08-cv-597 (D. Ct. Oct. 24, 2008) | |
August 2008: Third District Court Holds Sacramento County Decision to Close Airport Not Preempted by State Law but Is a ‘Project’ Subject to CEQA Review Sunset Skyranch Pilots Association v. County of Sacramento, ___Cal.App.4th___ C055224 (3rd Dist. July 2, 2008) | |
August 2008: Consistent Equals Compatible: First District Court Upholds Travis Air Force Base Land Use Compatibility Plan Muzzy Ranch v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission 164 Cal.App.4th 1 (1st Dist. 2008) | |
August 2007: Supreme Court Holds Adoption of Airport Land Use Plan Freezing Land Use Restrictions Qualifies for ‘Common Sense’ Exemption from CEQA Muzzy Ranch Co., v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission, ___ Cal.4th___ S131484 (Cal. June 21, 2007) | |
October 2006: Third District Concludes Airport Variance Did Not Entitle County to Obstruct Navigable Airspace in Perpetuity Rancho Murieta Airport, Inc. v. County of Sacramento, ___Cal.App.4th___ C049783 (3rd Dist. Aug. 29, 2006) | |
October 2006: Sacramento Airport Faces $2.3 Million Fix for Wetlands/Endangered Species Oversight U.S. v. County of Sacramento 2:06-CV-00908 GEB-GGH, (E.D. Cal.. 2006) | |
April 2005: Second District Court Denies Compensation for Loss of Visibility Claim in Inverse Condemnation Action Regency Outdoor Advertising v. City of Los Angeles, ___Cal.App.4th___ B159255 (2nd Dist. Feb. 17, 2005) | |
February 2005: First District Court Finds an Airport Land Use Plan Is a Project Subject to CEQA. Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. A104955 (1st Dist. Jan. 5, 2005). | |
December 2004: Legislative update | |
October 2004: Legislative update | |
October 2004: First District Affirms Decision Finding Inclusion of Economic Feasibility Analysis in an Environmental Impact Report Unnecessary Sierra Club v. County of Napa (Beringer Wine Estates), ___Cal.App.4th ___ A101941 (1st Dist. Aug. 6, 2004) | |
August 2004: Napa Valley Wine Train Is Not a Common Carrier and Therefore Not Subject To Regulation as a Public Utility City of St. Helena v. Public Utilities Commission ___ Cal.App.4th ___(1st Dist. June 21, 2004) | |
June 2004: Washington Supreme Court Decides Against Requiring a Water Right for Stromwater Management Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Board, et al., ___P.3d___ 73419-4 (Wash. Sup. Ct. May 14, 2004). | |
November 2001: Court of Appeal Rules Oakland Airport's EIR Inadequate for Noise Impacts, Emissions, Health Risks and Endangered Species Berkeley Keep Jets over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Commissioners 91 Cal.App.4th 1344 (1st Dist. 2001) |
|
|
Alcohol Sales and Onsite Consumption |
|
|
|
American Monument Designation |
|
|
|
Annexation |
|
|
|
Appurtenant Water Rights |
|
|
|
Archeological and Historic Sites |
|
|
|
Architectural Guidelines |
|
|
|
Assessments |
|
February 2010: First District Clarifies Calculation of Special Benefits and Proportionality for Assessments Subject to Proposition 218 Town of Tiburon v. Bonander, ___Cal.App.4th__ A119918 (1st Dist. Dec. 31, 2009) | |
October 2009: First Appellate District finds Monthly Base Rate for Water Service Is a Property-Related Fee, Not an Assessment, under Article XIII D of the California Constitution Paland v. Brooktrails Township Community Services Dist. Bd. of Directors, ___Cal.App.4th___ A122630 (1st Dist. July 31, 2009) | |
May 2009: News from the West | |
December 2008: Fifth District Court Reaffirms Attorney’s Fee Recovery for Violation of Brown Act and Public Records Act Galbiso v. Orosi Public Utility District, ___Cal.App.4th___ F053236 (5th Dist. Oct. 23, 2008) | |
October 2008: California Supreme Court Provides Significant New Guidance Regarding Adequacy of Local Benefit Assessments Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority 44 Cal.4th 431 (2008) |
June 2007: Sacramento Voters Approve Flood Protection Assessment | |
April 2007: First District Finds Property Owners’ Proposition 218 Challenge to Special Assessment Is a Validation Action that Must Comply with Special Procedures for Service of Process Bonander et al. v. City of Tiburon, et al., ___Cal.App.4th___ A115239 (1st Dist. Jan. 31, 2007) |
|
|
Baselines for Determining Enviornmental Impacts |
|
|
|
Bay Delta Conservation Plan |
|
|
|
Big Box Retail Stores |
|
|
|
"Big Box" Retail Stores |
|
|
|
Big Box" Retail Stores |
|
|
|
Billboards |
|
January 2008: Ninth Circuit Issues Opinions in Three Unrelated Cases Regarding the Constitutionality of Local Ordinances Restricting Billboards Desert Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Oakland, ___ F.3d ___ 05-15501 (9th Cir. Oct. 30, 2007) | |
December 2007: Fourth District Court Considers Appropriate Measure of Damages for Trespass Action Bailey v. Outdoor Media Group, et al., ___Cal.App.4th___ EO40071 (4th Dist. Sept. 25, 2007) | |
October 2006: California Supreme Court Finds Impairment of Visibility of Billboard Not a Compensable Taking Absent Further Claim of Damage Regency Outdoor Advertising v. City of Los Angeles 39 Cal.4th 507 (2006) | |
April 2005: Second District Court Denies Compensation for Loss of Visibility Claim in Inverse Condemnation Action Regency Outdoor Advertising v. City of Los Angeles, ___Cal.App.4th___ B159255 (2nd Dist. Feb. 17, 2005) | |
May 2001: Billboard Advertiser Cannot State a Cause of Action under the Permit Streamlining Act until the Lead Agency Has Taken Specific Action under CEQA Eller Media Company v. City of Los Angeles, ___ Cal.App.4th ___, Case No. B142004 (2nd Dist. Mar. 21, 2001). |
|
|
Bills and Proposed Legislation |
|
August 2010: California Legislature Considers Expanding Eligible Recipients of Sustainable Communities Funding to Special Districts, JPAs and Other Land Use Authorities | |
August 2010: Legislative update | |
July 2010: Legislative update |
July 2010: California Legislature Considers Expanding Eligible Recipients of Sustainable Communities Funding to Special Districts, JPAs and Other Land Use Authorities | |
June 2010: Land Use Legislation | |
May 2010: Legislative Update | |
April 2010: Legislative Update | |
April 2010: Proposed Initiatives for the November 2010 Ballot to Enact ‘California Job and Housing Act’ to Amend CEQA Initiatives 10-008 to 10-011 | |
March 2010: Legislative Update | |
March 2010: California Senate Bill 481: A Safe Landing for Endangered Birds, but Not for Aircraft | |
March 2010: U.S. Senate Desert Conservation Bill Will Impact Renewable Energy Development | |
February 2010: U.S. Senate Desert Conservation Bill Will Impact Renewable Energy Development | |
January 2010: 2009 Year-End Review of Select Land Use Legislation | |
November 2009: Land Use Legislation | |
October 2009: Land use legislation | |
August 2009: Legislative update | |
July 2009: Legislative update | |
June 2009: Land use legislation | |
May 2009: Land use legislation | |
April 2009: Legislative update | |
March 2009: Land use legislation | |
December 2008: 2008 Year-end review of select land use legislation | |
November 2008: Legislative update | |
October 2008: Land use legislation | |
August 2008: City of Half Moon Bay’s Settlement Agreement with Developer Stalled in the California Senate | |
August 2008: Land use legislation | |
August 2008: Senate Bill Shoots for AB 32’s Targets with Transportation and Land Use Planning | |
July 2008: Land use legislation | |
July 2008: State Assembly Rejects Proposed Legislation to Offset Water Use of New Developments | |
June 2008: Land use legislation | |
May 2008: Legislative update | |
April 2008: aaa aaa aaa | |
April 2008: aaa aaa aaa | |
December 2007: 2007 Land use legislation wrap up | |
November 2007: Legislative update |
October 2007: Budget Trailer Bill Creates Exception for Climate Change Analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act | |
October 2007: Land use legislation |
August 2007: Climate Change Considerations for Water Planning: AB 224 and Other Legislative Proposals | |
August 2007: Land use legislation | |
July 2007: Land use legislation | |
June 2007: Land use legislation | |
May 2007: Legislative update | |
April 2007: Legislative update | |
February 2007: Governor Schwarzenegger’s Budget Includes Proposals for Land Use Related Spending | |
December 2006: 2006 Year-End Legislative Summary | |
November 2006: Legislative update | |
October 2006: Legislative update | |
October 2006: ‘Protect Our Homes Act’ Initiative Seeking Constitutional Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot | |
August 2006: Legislative update | |
May 2006: Legislative update | |
April 2006: Recent land use legislation | |
December 2005: 2005 Land use Legislation Wrap Up | |
November 2005: Land use legislation | |
October 2005: Legislative update | |
August 2005: California Senate Natural Resources and Water Resources Committee Approves Sweeping Water Bill | |
August 2005: Legislative update | |
July 2005: Legislative update | |
June 2005: Legislative Update | |
May 2005: Legislative Update | |
April 2005: Legislative Update | |
February 2005: Second District Court Clarifies the Meaning of a “Big Box Retailer” under AB 178. City of Carson v. City of La Mirada, ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. B168849 (2nd Dist. Dec. 30, 2004). | |
January 2005: Voters Terminate Property Tax Shifting from Local Governments and Special Districts; Governor’s Budget Focuses Shift on Enterprise Special Districts | |
December 2004: Legislative update | |
December 2004: California’s New Land Reuse and Revitalization Act May Assist Brownfields Development | |
October 2004: Legislative update | |
August 2004: Napa Valley Wine Train Is Not a Common Carrier and Therefore Not Subject To Regulation as a Public Utility City of St. Helena v. Public Utilities Commission ___ Cal.App.4th ___(1st Dist. June 21, 2004) | |
July 2004: Resources Agency Issues Proposed CEQA Guideline Amendments. | |
June 2004: Keeping Them Down On the Farm—Recent Trends In Williamson Act Legislation | |
June 2004: Legislative Update | |
January 2004: Water and the 2003 California Legislature: Polemics, Procrastination & Pirouettes | |
December 2003: Governor Davis Approves Bill Granting Regional Water Quality Control Boards Veto Power over Approval of Timber Harvesting Plans | |
November 2003: Actions Begun to Protect Three Southern California Wetland Areas | |
June 2003: Controversial Bills Affecting Land Development and Water Metering Pass out of Committees | |
April 2003: Assembly Bill 2292: Losing Local Control over Growth | |
March 2003: Legislature Considers Coastal Commission "Fix" | |
March 2003: Legislative Update | |
February 2003: California Coastal Commission Held Unconstitutional; Legislative Responses Likely Marine Forests Society v. California Coastal Commission ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. C038753 (3rd Dist. Dec. 30, 2002). | |
January 2003: 2002 Annual Summary Of Select Land Use Legislation | |
November 2002: Select Land Use Legislation | |
October 2002: California Voters to Decide Future Investment in Infrastructure through Assembly Constitutional Amendment 11 | |
August 2002: As California Awaits Adoption of a 2002-03 Budget, Subvention Funding for the Williamson Act Program Remains Up in the Air | |
July 2002: Select Land Use Legislation | |
June 2002: Select Land Use Legislation | |
May 2002: Select Land Use Legislation | |
Janurary 2002: 2001 Year-End Legislative Summary | |
October 2001: California Senate Bill 221 Would Require a Reliable Source of Water for New Real Estate Development Projects | |
October 2001: edit |
|
|
Biosolids |
|
November 2009: Ninth Circuit Holds that Intrastate Plaintiffs Must Have ‘Prudential Standing’ to a Bring Claim under the Dormant Commerce Clause City of Los Angeles, et al v. County of Kern, et al., ___F.3d___ 07-56564, 08-56622 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2009) | |
January 2007: District Court Rules that Complete Ban on Land Application of Biosolids Likely Is Preempted by State Law, Violates Dormant Commerce Clause, and Exceeds County’s Police Powers City of Los Angeles et al. v. Kern County et al., ___F.Supp.2d___ CV-06-5094 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 24, 2006) and (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2006) |
|
|
Blighted Property |
|
|
|
Boundary Agreements |
|
|
|
Brownfields |
|
|
|
Building Codes |
|
|
|
Building Densities |
|
|
|
Building Fees |
|
|
|
Building Moratorium |
|
|
|
Building Permits |
|
|
|
Building Permits and Fees |
|
July 2008: Connecticut Appellate Court Skirts Riparian Water Rights Issue to Find Land Owner’s Dock on Water Body in Violation of Building Permit Ertel v. Rocque, Jr., Commissioner of Environmental Protection 27488 (108 Conn.App. 48) (Conn. App. May 27, 2008) | |
August 2006: New Jersey Court of Appeals Finds State Department of Environmental Protection May Not Reverse Its Course Following Issuance of a No Further Approval Notice Affecting Development on/near Wetlands In the Matter of Island Bay, LLC (N.J.App. June 21, 2006) | |
February 2006: Building Permit and Plan Review Fees Are Not Fees Imposed on a ‘Development Project’ under the Mitigation Fee Act—But May Still Be Challenged as ‘Excessive’ Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga, ___Cal.4th___ S117590 (Cal. 2005) | |
September 2005: Washington: Water Supply and the Land Use Connection | |
July 2005: Second District Court Finds Bad Faith Trumps Claim of Vested Right to Operate Medical Laboratory Specializing in Autopsies Autopsy/Post Services, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (2nd Dist. May 17, 2005) | |
August 2004: Controversial Incidental Take Permit Is Issued Under Riverside County’s Huge Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. | |
August/September 2003: Challenge to Building and Permit Fees Must Be Brought through a Validation Action Pursuant to Government Code Sections 66014 and 66106 Barratt American, Incorp. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. E032578 (4th Dist. May 28, 2003). |
|
|
California Environmental Quality Act |
|
June 2010: First District Issues First Published Decision Regarding Greenhouse Gas Mitigation under CEQA Communities for a Better Environment, et al. v. City of Richmond 184 Cal.App.4th 70 (1st Dist. 2010) | |
February 2006: First District Court Rules that CEQA Does Not Apply to Interior Home Projects Martin v. City & County of San Francisco, ___Cal. App.4th___ A107768 (1st Dist. Dec. 29, 2005) | |
January 2006: California Department of Water Resources Releases South Delta Improvements Program Environmental Impact Report | |
December 2005: 2005 Land use Legislation Wrap Up | |
November 2005: Urban Decay—The Uncertain Intersection of CEQA and Economic Analysis | |
October 2005: Second District Finds Los Angeles Cannot Ignore Mitigation Measures Adopted as Part of Redevelopment Project Lincoln Place Tenants Association v. City of Los Angeles 130 Cal.App.4th 1491 (2nd Dist. 2005) | |
October 2005: Sixth District Rules More CEQA Study Needed of Impacts of Off-Leash Dogs on State Beach Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz 131 Cal.App.4th 1170 (6th Dist. 2005) | |
October 2005: Fourth District Finds EIR Fatally Flawed and Project Inconsistent with Orange County’s General Plan Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange, ___Cal.App.4th___ G034416 (4th Dist. June 29, 2005) | |
July 2005: Legislative update | |
June 2005: First District Court Holds City of Hayward Improperly Delegated Cost of Preparing CEQA Administrative Record to Developer Hayward Area Planning Association v. City of Hayward 128 Cal.App.4th 176 (1st. Dist. 2005) | |
April 2005: Second District Court Rejects Second Challenge to Los Angeles’ Approval of a General Plan Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles, ___Cal.App.4th ___ B166819 (2nd Dist. Feb. 17, 2005) | |
March 2005: First District Court Overturns County Project Approval Based on Improper Reliance on Mitigation Measures to Grant a Categorical Exemption under CEQA Salmon Protection and Watershed Network v. County of Marin, ___Cal.App.4th___ A105592 (1st Dist. Dec. 16, 2004; pub. ordered Jan. 18, 2005) | |
March 2005: Fourth District Court Rules Service of Petition Was Untimely for Conditional Use Permit Challenge and without Exception under Government Code Royal Carpet Mills, Inc. v. City of Irvine 125 Cal.App.4th 1110 (4th Dist. 2005) | |
February 2005: Fifth District Court Finds EIRs Prepared for Two Projects Containing Wal-Mart as Anchor Tenant Inadequate under CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, ___Cal.App.4th___, Consol. Case No’s. F044943 and F045035 (5th Dist. Dec. 13, 2004). | |
February 2005: Second District Court Overturns Planning Commission Decision because of the Unacceptable Probability of Actual Bias. Nasha, L.L.C., v. City of Los Angeles, ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. BC258585 (2nd Dist. Dec. 29, 2004). | |
February 2005: First District Court Finds an Airport Land Use Plan Is a Project Subject to CEQA. Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. A104955 (1st Dist. Jan. 5, 2005). | |
January 2005: Third District Court Rules State Water Resources Control Board Must Specify ‘Actual Use’ Central Delta Water Agency v. State Water Resources Control Board (Delta Wetlands Properties) C041749, modifying opinion of Nov. 19, 2004 (3rd Dist. Dec. 16, 2004) | |
January 2005: Court-Issued Writ Commanding Agency to Account for “All” Sources of Pollution Is Limited to Sources Identified in EIR Riverwatch v. County of San Diego D042430 (4th Dist. Oct. 25, 2004) | |
January 2005: Fifth District Court Finds CEQA Request for Hearing Requirement Does Not Require the Setting of a Hearing Date Leavitt v. County of Madera, ___Cal.App.4th ___ F044068 (5th Dist. Nov. 3, 2004) | |
December 2004: Sixth District Court Finds Substantial Evidence to Support Finding that Monterey County’s “Old Jail” Has Historic Value Requiring an EIR Before Demolition May Occur Architectural Heritage Association, et al. v. County of Monterey 122 Cal.App.4th 1095 (6th Dist. 2004) | |
December 2004: Third District Court Upholds El Dorado County’s Finding that Mining Reclamation Plan Did Not Require Preparation of an EIR El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth v. County of El Dorado 122 Cal.App.4th 1591 (3rd Dist. 2004) | |
December 2004: Legislative update | |
December 2004: Fourth District Court Upholds EIR For Conversion of Mobile Home Park to Public Recreational Facilities El Morro Community Association v. California Department of Parks and Recreation 122 Cal.App.4th 1341 (4th Dist. 2004) | |
December 2004: Third District Rejects Holding in McCormick v. Board of Supervisors—Finds CEQA Requirement to Request a Hearing within 90-days Satisfied by Document Entitled “Request for a Hearing”. Association for Sensible Development at Northstar, Inc. v. Placer County (Northstar Mountain Properties, LLC) ___Cal.App.4th___ CO44364 (3rd Dist. Oct, 4, 2004) | |
December 2004: Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) Fails to Relieve Water Agency’s Failure, Through Its Attorney’s “Inexcusable Neglect,” to Timely Request a CEQA Hearing Nacimiento Regional Water Management Advisory Committee v. Monterey County Water Resources Agency, ___Cal.App.4th___ A104687 (1st Dist. Sept. 29, 2004) | |
November 2004: First District Court Clarifies When Statements of Technical Issues Constitute Substantial Evidence and When Aesthetic Impacts Will Be Considered Significant under CEQA Bowman v. Berkeley 122 Cal.App.4th 772 (1st Dist. 2004) | |
November 2004: Third District Court Upholds Reclamation Plan Approval Based on a Negative Declaration. El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth v. County of El Dorado CO44541, unpublished opinion (3rd Dist. Sept. 14, 2004) | |
October 2004: Legislative update | |
October 2004: Unnecessary Preparation of Environmental Impact Report by Santa Barbara County Did Not Waive CEQA Exemption for Local Coastal Plan Amendment Santa Barbara County Flower and Nursery Growers Association, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara, ___Cal.App.4th___ B170027 (2nd Dist. Aug. 17, 2004) | |
October 2004: Fourth District Finds that an EIR Does Not Need to Identify the End User of a Commercial Project. Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley, ___Cal.App.4th___ E033904 (4th Dist. June 10, 2004) | |
October 2004: First District Affirms Decision Finding Inclusion of Economic Feasibility Analysis in an Environmental Impact Report Unnecessary Sierra Club v. County of Napa (Beringer Wine Estates), ___Cal.App.4th ___ A101941 (1st Dist. Aug. 6, 2004) | |
May 2004: Court of Appeal Requires Agency to Consider the “Whole of an Action” When Determining whether a “Project” Exists under CEQA Association for a Cleaner Environment v. Yosemite Community College District 116 Cal.App.4th 629 (5th Dist. 2004). | |
January 2004: Fourth District Court of Appeal’s Ruling Clarifies Scope of Administrative Record in Lawsuits Filed under the California Environmental Quality Act County of Orange v. Superior Court of Orange County 113 Cal.App.4th 1, (4th Dist. published Nov. 6, 2003). | |
November 2003: Second District Court finds Actual Construction of Units within Coastal Zone Is Necessary to Trigger Mello Act’s Affordable Housing Requirement Coalition of Concerned Communities v. City of Los Angeles (Catellus Residential Group) ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. B149092 (2nd Dist. Sept. 8, 2003). | |
October 2003: No Good Deed Goes Unpunished—Questioning the Constitutionality of Sacred Site Preservation Laws | |
October 2003: Court of Appeal Upholds Decision Excluding Evidence of Economic Harm as Irrelevant to Plaintiff’s Facial Takings Challenge of a City Regulation Limiting Development NJD, Ltd. v. City of San Dimas 110 Cal.App.4th 1428, (2nd Dist. 2003). | |
October 2003: California Energy Commission’s Decision to Approve a Power Plant Did Not Become Ripe for Judicial Challenge Until 30 Days after the Decision Was Filed with Its Docket Unit Figueroa v. California Energy Com 110 Cal.App.4th 1115 (4th Dist. 2003.) | |
October 2003: Court of Appeal Upholds Los Angeles Unified School District’s Adoption of Level Two School Impact Fees Coalition for Affordable Housing v. City of Los Angeles Board of Education Case No. B 159777, unpublished opinion (2nd Dist. July 1, 2003). | |
August/September 2003: Sixth District Finds California State University Not Required to Mitigate Offsite Impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. H023158 ( 6th Dist. June 17, 2003) | |
August/September 2003: Fifth District Sets Aside EIR Because of County’s Failure to Include Sufficient Findings to Support Certification in Administrative Record Protect Our Water v. County of Merced, unpublished opinion Case No. F041200 (5th Dist. July 9, 2003). | |
July 2003: Superior Court: Court Issues Final Ruling for All Residual Contested Matters Pending in CALFED Coordinated Proceedings Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings Case No. JC04152 (Superior Court, County of Sacramento May 5, 2003). | |
July 2003: Court of Appeal: Court of Appeal Finds Sonoma County Water Agency's EIR Deficient in Relation to the Eel River Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. AO98118 (appeal filed Sept. 17, 2002 1st Dist.). | |
June 2003: Abuse of Discretion Standard Upheld as Appropriate for EIR Review under CEQA Association of Irritated Residents, et al. v. County of Madera, et al. 107 Cal.App.4th 1383 (5th Cir. 2003). | |
June 2003: California Coastal Commission Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Consider Impacts Outside the Coastal Zone Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission, 107 Cal.App.4th 1030 (1st Dist. 2003). | |
June 2003: Planning and Litigation in Glendale: The Story and the Morals of Gregg v. City of Glendale | |
June 2003: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Reconsiders Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Irrigated Lands | |
May 2003: County Did Not Violate CEQA by Analyzing Two Projects in a Single Environmental Impact Report Neighbors of Cavitt Ranch, et al. v. County of Placer ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. C040450 (3rd Dist. March 7, 2003). | |
March 2003: Ahmanson Ranch Litigation Enters Next Phase | |
March 2003: Environmental Groups Challenge Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board's Decision to Issue a Waiver for Agricultural Return Flows Deltakeeper, et al. v. California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region Case No. 03CS00032 (Sacramento Superior Court). | |
February 2003: Oral Argument on California Environmental Quality Act Challenge to CalFed EIR Concludes Sacramento Superior Court Consolidated Case No. 4152 | |
December 2002: Court of Appeal: Third District Court of Appeal Invalidates Portions of CEQA Guidelines Communities for a Better Environment et al. v. California Resources Agency ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. C038844 (3rd Dist. Oct. 28, 2002). | |
December 2002: First District Reaffirms Deferential Standard of Review for General Plan Consistency, CEQA Compliance and Blight Determinations San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan et al. v. City and County of San Francisco 102 Cal.App.4th 656 (1st Dist. Sept. 30, 2002). | |
November 2002: Court of Appeal: Court of Appeal Finds Planning Commission Justified in Requiring Environmental Impact Report for 21-Unit Segmented Residential Project 41 Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. South Valley Planning Commission 101 Cal.App.4th 1333 (2nd Dist. Sept. 11, 2002). | |
November 2002: In Eminent Domain Action, First District Court of Appeal Finds Evidence of Comparable Sales to Redevelopment Agency Not Admissible to Determine Valuation Emeryville Redevelopment v. Harcros Pigments, Inc. 101 Cal.App.4th 1083 (1st Dist. Aug. 9, 2002). | |
November 2002: Court of Appeal Finds Offsite View Corridor Mitigation Is Consistent with Requirements of the California Coastal Act La Costa Beach Homeowners Association v. California Coastal Commission 101 Cal.App.4th 804 (2nd Dist. Aug. 29, 2002). | |
November 2002: Court of Appeal Upholds Santa Monica's Adoption of Preferential Parking Zone for Residents under Categorical Exemption to CEQA Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica 101 Cal.App.4th 786 (2nd Dist. Aug. 29, 2002) | |
November 2002: Agency Decision Not to Conduct Further Environmental Review of Redevelopment Plan Component Does Not Require Public Notice under CEQA Cumming v. City of San Bernardino Redevelopment Agency ___Cal.App.4th____ Case No. EO30566 (4th Dist. Aug. 9, 2002). | |
July 2002: Delta Wetlands Project Prevails in Water Rights Litigation Central Delta Water Agency, et al. v. State Water Resources Control Board, et al. Case No. 01CS00345 (Sacramento County Superior Court April 25, 2002) | |
July 2002: Third District Finds CEQA Baseline Is Normally the Existing Environment when Environmental Review Begins Kenneth F. Fat et al., v. County of Sacramento; Sunset Skyranch Pilots Association et al. 97 Cal.App.4th 1270 (3rd Dist. 2002) | |
October 2001: CEQA Petitioner with Notice that a Change of Venue Is Complete Is Not Excused from Requesting a Hearing Within the Mandatory 90-day Period Guardians of Elk Creek Old Growth v. Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection 89 Cal.App.4th 1431 (1st Dist. June 21, 2001). | |
October 2001: Napa County's Airport Industrial Area Specific Plan Is Inconsistent with the County's General Plan - Court Strikes Related EIR Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors, 91 Cal.App.4th 342 (1st Dist. |
|
|
California Lake and Streambed Alteration Program |
|
|
|
California Strategic Growth Plan |
|
|
|
Central Valley Flood Protection Plan |
|
|
|
CEQA Alternatives Analysis |
|
|
|
CEQA Exemptions |
|
May 2010: Supreme Court Holds CEQA Challenge Time-Barred where Agency Filed Notice of Exemption, Whether or Not Exemption Properly Applied Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, ___Cal.4th___ S161190 (April 1, 2010) | |
May 2010: Superior Court finds State Must Perform Environmental Review for Completed 2009 Drought Water Bank Butte Environmental Council v. California Department of Water Resources RG09446708 (Alameda Super. Ct. March 2010) | |
January 2010: Second District Affirms CEQA Exemption for Transportation Rate Increase Bus Riders Union v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency, ___Cal.App.4th___ B212145 (2nd Dist. 2009) | |
January 2010: Fourth District Finds Local Agency Failed to Demonstrate Application of ‘Class 8’ CEQA Exemption to Passage of Air Pollution Offset Rule California Unions for Reliable Energy v. Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, 178 Cal.App.4th 1225 (4th Dist. 2009) | |
June 2008: Second District Court Rules City of Los Angeles Erroneously Relied upon CEQA Categorical Exemption to Approve Permit for Residential Fence Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan and Hollywood Heritage v. City of Los Angeles, ___Cal.App.4th___ B197018 (2nd Dist. Mar. 12, 2008) | |
August 2007: Supreme Court Holds Adoption of Airport Land Use Plan Freezing Land Use Restrictions Qualifies for ‘Common Sense’ Exemption from CEQA Muzzy Ranch Co., v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission, ___ Cal.4th___ S131484 (Cal. June 21, 2007) |
|
|
CEQA Fees |
|
|
|
CEQA Lead Agency |
|
|
|
CEQA Project Defined |
|
|
|
CEQA Statutes of Limitation |
|
|
|
Charter City |
|
|
|
Climate Change and Global Warming |
|
|
|
Coastal Lands |
|
August 2010: California Legislature Considers Requiring Public Land Trustees to Prepare Sea Level Action Plan | |
August 2010: Texas State Court Holds Environmental Group Lacks Standing to Challenge Curtailed Review of Wind Farm Projects San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. City of San Diego 185 Cal.App.4th 924 (Cal.App.4th Dist. 2010) | |
June 2010: Land Use Legislation | |
June 2010: First District Upholds Coastal Commission’s Order Prohibiting Discharge of Fireworks over Estuary without a Coastal Development Permit Gualala Festivals Committee v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___ A125614 (1st Dist. 2010) | |
May 2010: EPA Clean Water Act Settlement and Consideration of New Guidance Signals Potential New Strategy for Groups Seeking GHG Regulation | |
May 2010: Legislative Update | |
April 2010: Legislative Update | |
March 2010: NOAA Sets ‘Policy Precedent’ by Proposing 70,000 Miles of Critical Leatherback Turtle Habitat | |
February 2010: Sonoma County Conservation Group Purchases Coastal Preserve | |
February 2010: Second District Upholds Coastal Commission’s Denial of a Coastal Development Permit as Inconsistent with City’s Local Coastal Plan Reddell v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___ B206428 (2nd Dist. Dec. 1, 2009) | |
January 2010: 2009 Year-End Review of Select Land Use Legislation | |
January 2010: The Boundary of Navigable Waters and Tidelands May Extend behind Lawfully Built Shore Defense Structures as if They Do Not Exist | |
December 2009: Ninth Circuit Finds Property Owners Adjoining Tidelands Liable for Trespass and Violations of the CWA and Rivers and Harbors Act for Shore Structures U.S. v. Milner, ___F.3d___ 05-35802 (9th Cir. 2009) | |
October 2009: Land use legislation | |
August 2009: Second District Holds California Coastal Commission Properly Considered Coastal View in Deciding Permit Application Farr v. California Coastal Commission, 173 Cal. App.4th 1474 (2nd Dist. 2009). | |
August 2009: Legislative update | |
July 2009: San Diego Superior Court Decision Paves Way for Construction of Carlsbad Desalination Project Surfrider Foundation v. California Coastal Commission 37-2008-00075727 (San Diego Super. Ct. May 7, 2009) | |
July 2009: Legislative update | |
June 2009: Fourth District Rules CEQA 30-Day Statute of Limitations Applies to Agency Action Taken Pursuant to a Certified Regulatory Program Strother v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal. App.4th___ G040745 (4th Dist. April 30, 2009) | |
June 2009: Land use legislation | |
June 2009: Pacific Legal Foundation Files Suit Challenging California Coastal Commission’s Permit Requirement of Agricltural Easement | |
May 2009: Land use legislation | |
May 2009: Superior Court Finds City Abused Its Discretion in Denying a Mobilehome Park Conversion Application as Incomplete Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles BS 112956 (Los Angeles Cnty Super Ct 2009) | |
April 2009: Legislative update | |
April 2009: New Jersey Appellate Division Rejects State Agency’s Settlement as a Violation of Coastal Area Facility Review Act Dragon v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 01-2-2982 (N.J.App.Div. March 6, 2009) | |
March 2009: Sixth District Affirms Finding of No Taking where County’s Denial of Permit Did Not Deprive Owners of All Economically Beneficial Use of Property Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz, ___Cal.App.4th___ H031108 (6th Dist. Jan. 20, 2009) | |
March 2009: Sixth District Finds Coastal Commission Failed to Make Findings that Denying a Development Permit Would Result in a ‘Taking’ in Violation of the Coastal Act McAllister v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___ H031283 (6th Dist. Dec. 30, 2008) | |
February 2009: U.S. EPA Issues Third National Coastal Condition Report—Nation’s Coastal Waters Continue to Be Rated ‘Fair’ | |
February 2009: Coastal Commission to Hear Appeal of Malibu’s Approval of Beachfront Development Alberstone v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___ B202008 (2nd Dist. Dec. 29, 2008) | |
February 2009: Second District Rules Coastal Commission Lacks Permitting Authority with Respect to Fence Repair that Was Integral to a Boundary Agreement Burke v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal. App.4th___ B207188 (2nd Dist. Dec. 2, 2008) | |
January 2009: New Jersey Appellate Division Holds State Regulation Governing Beach Road Access Invalid Borough of Avalon v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection A-3410-07T3. (N.J. App. Div. November 19, 2008) | |
December 2008: Second District Court Holds Property Owner Estopped to Contest Coastal Commission’s Jurisdiction over Protracted Proceedings Mt. Holyoke Homes, L.P. v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___ B201517 (2nd. Dist. Oct. 21, 2008) | |
December 2008: 2008 Year-end review of select land use legislation | |
December 2008: Georgia Supreme Court Finds State Marshlands Act Does Not Repose Broad Authority in State Agency to Regulate Upland Coastal Development Center for a Sustainable Coast, et. al. v. Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee et. al Petition No. S07G1745 (Ga Nov. 17, 2008) | |
November 2008: Second District Court Upholds Ruling that the California Coastal Commission Substantially Complied with Hearing Notice Requirements North Pacifica LLC v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___ B199446 (2nd Dist. Sept. 2008) | |
October 2008: Land use legislation | |
August 2008: U.S. Coastlines and Estuaries the Focus of Public Interest Group Report | |
August 2008: Land use legislation | |
July 2008: Land use legislation | |
July 2008: Second District Court Finds Vested Rights Are Superceded by California Coastal Act Pratt v. California Coastal Commission 162 Cal. App.4th 1068 (2008) | |
July 2008: Sixth District Court Upholds $5.3 Million Mitigation Fee by California Coastal Commission as Condition of Coastal Development Permit Ocean Harbor House Homeowners Ass’n v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th ___ H031129 (6th Dist. May 23, 2008) | |
July 2008: Ninth Circuit Finds District Court Erred in Awarding Developer Damages and Attorney’s Fees for Alleged Equal Protection Violation North Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica, ___F.3d___ 05-16069, 05-16146, 06-15102, 06-15131, 06, 15631, 06-15772 (9th Cir. May 13, 2008) | |
July 2008: Massachusetts Appellate Court Confirms Homeowner’s Right to Assert Exclusive Ownership and Control of Beach Nancy J. Houghton & Others v. Linda Jean Johnson, Trustee 06-P-1400 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008, May 30) | |
June 2008: Land use legislation |
May 2008: U.S. House of Representatives Passes Beach Protection Act | |
May 2008: Legislative update | |
May 2008: Riparian Rights Confirmed in 1905 Compact Does Not Preclude Delaware from Rejecting New Jersey Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal along and into Delaware River State of New Jersey v. State of Delaware, ___U.S.___ 134, (U.S. March 31, 2008) | |
May 2008: Chesapeake Bay Study Faults Application of ‘Critical Area’ Decisions in Maryland—Group Initiates Study for Oyster Aquaculture Suitability | |
April 2008: aaa aaa aaa | |
April 2008: aaa aaa aaa | |
April 2008: aaa aaa aaa | |
March 2008: First District Rules Coastal Commission Lacks Authority to Declare Property Environmentally Sensitive Habitat on Appeal from Grant ofCoastal Development Permit Security National Guaranty, Inc. v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___ A114647 (1st Dist. Jan. 25, 2008) | |
March 2008: Environmental Groups Challenge Approval of Coastal Development Permit for Desalination Facility in Carlsbad Surfrider Foundation, Planning and Conservation League v. California Coastal Commission (Poseidon Resources, LLC, et al., Real Parties in Interest) 37-2008-00075727-CU-WM-CTL (San Diego Super. Ct., filed Jan. 14, 2008) | |
March 2008: First District Court Holds Deficiencies in Process Do Not Require Invalidation of LAFCO Annexation Proceeding Citizens for Responsible Open Space v. San Mateo County LAFCO, ___Cal.App.4th___ CIV442954 (1st Dist. Jan. 31, 2008) | |
December 2007: 2007 Land use legislation wrap up | |
November 2007: Legislative update | |
October 2007: New Jersey Appellate Division Finds Land Owner Entitled to Reversal of Agency Decision Denying Coastal Building Permit Siegel v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2007 WL-2126806 (N.J. App. Div. July 26, 2007) | |
October 2007: Land use legislation | |
August 2007: Land use legislation | |
July 2007: Sixth District Holds that Groundwater Augmentation Charges Are Subject to Proposition 218 Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. Amrhein 150 Cal.App.4th 1364 (6th Dist. 2007) | |
July 2007: Second District Overturns Coastal Commission Denial of Permit for Gates and No Trespassing Signs on Malibu Property LT-WR, LLC v. California Coastal Commission, ___ Cal.App.4th___ B187666 (2nd Dist. May 25, 2007) | |
July 2007: Land use legislation | |
June 2007: Land use legislation | |
May 2007: Legislative update | |
April 2007: Legislative update | |
March 2007: Sixth District Finds Monterey County’s CEQA Determination ‘Intermediate Environmental Decision’ Not Subject to Judicial Review McAllister v. County of Monterey, ____Cal.App.4th ___ H028813 (6th Dist. Jan. 31, 2007) | |
March 2007: New Jersey Appellate Division Remands Case Allowing Claims for Trespass and ‘Takings’ against Borough for Its Actions to Prevent Storm Surge Damage Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon 2007 WL 208534 (N.J. App. January 29, 2007) | |
November 2006: First District Finds Moratorium-Related Tolling of Tentative Map Limited to Total of Five Years by Subdivision Map Act Ailanto Properties, Inc. v. City of Half Moon Bay 142 Cal.App.4th 572 (1st Dist. 2006) | |
October 2006: Second District Concludes Boaters’ Right to View Coastline Not a Proper Consideration in Coastal Commission’s Regulation of Coastal Development Schneider v. California Coastal Commission 140 Cal.App.4th 1339 (2nd Dist. 2006) | |
March 2006: Second District Holds Regulatory Taking Claim Is Ripe when County Denies Application to Subdivide Parcel into Two Residential Lots Dunn v. County of Santa Barbara, ___Cal.App.4th___ B175149 (2nd Dist. Jan. 25, 2006) | |
February 2006: Scripps Research Facility Project in Florida Delayed by Environmental Issues Related to Coastal Development Florida Wildlife Federation v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ___F.Supp.2d___ 05-CV-80339, (S.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2005); injunction issued Nov. 10, 2005; injunction clarified Nov. 21, 2005 | |
January 2006: Michigan Supreme Court Protects the Public’s Right to Walk Great Lakes Shorelands and Beaches Glass v. Goeckel, 473 Mich. 667, 703 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. 2005) | |
October 2005: Sixth District Rules More CEQA Study Needed of Impacts of Off-Leash Dogs on State Beach Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz 131 Cal.App.4th 1170 (6th Dist. 2005) | |
July 2005: California Supreme Court Backs Coasal Commission Grant of Housing Development Permit Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.4th___ S116081 (May 20, 2005) | |
June 2005: Second District Court Rejects Neighbors’ Request to Intervene in Action Brought by City of Malibu and David Geffen Regarding Site Specific Coastal Public Access City of Malibu v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___ B171650 (2nd Dist. April 25, 2005) | |
June 2005: Third District Court Decides State Lands Commission’s Finding that Project “Enhanced The Configuration of the Shoreline” Not Supported by Substantial Evidence California Earth Corps v. California State Lands Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___ C041603 (3rd Dist. April 21, 2005) | |
May 2005: California Coastal Commission Loses Key Ruling in Affordable Housing Enforcement Action Blanton v. State of California, et al. 03CC00268, Orange County Superior Court (April 12, 2005) | |
April 2005: Desalination Facilities and Coastal Power Plants: Finding New Use for Old Technology | |
March 2005: Citizens’ Petition to Compel City to Process Coastal Development Permit Is Not a SLAPP Suit despite Pending Appeal of State-Adopted Local Coastal Plan Visher v. City of Malibu, ___Cal.App.4th___ B173471 (2nd Dist. Feb. 1, 2005) | |
December 2004: Legislative update | |
December 2004: Fourth District Court Upholds EIR For Conversion of Mobile Home Park to Public Recreational Facilities El Morro Community Association v. California Department of Parks and Recreation 122 Cal.App.4th 1341 (4th Dist. 2004) | |
October 2004: Second District Rejects Malibu’s Appeals to Escape from Coastal Commission’s Local Coastal Program Prepared Specifically for the City City of Malibu v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th ___ SS 011355 (2nd Dist. Aug. 23, 2004) | |
October 2004: Landowner Is Time Barred from Challenging Predecessor’s Irrevocable Offer of Dedication Made in Return for Development Entitlements Serra Canyon Co., Ltd. v. California Coastal Commission 120 Cal.App.4th 663 (2nd Dist. 2004) | |
April 2004: County Ordinances Affecting Timber Harvesting Preempted by the Timberland Productivity Act and the Forest Practice Act Big Creek Lumber Company v. County of Santa Cruz 115 Cal.App.4th 952 (6th Dist. 2004). | |
January 2004: California State Lands Commission Proposes Regulations Governing Oil Transfers, Oil Terminal Safety | |
January 2004: California Department of Transportation’s Transfer of Land, which Only Partially Lies within the Coastal Zone, to the Department of Parks and Recreation Does Not Offend the California Constitution Citizens For Hatton Canyon v. California Dept. of Transportation 112 Cal.App.4th 838 (6th Dist. 2003). | |
October 2003: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal on Basis of Lack of Standing New York Coastal Partnership, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior ___F.3d___, Case No. 02-6132 (2nd Cir. Aug. 18, 2003). | |
July 2003: California Coastal Commission's Administrative Appellate Jurisdiction Expires if No "Substantial Issue" Hearing Is Held within the 49-Day Statutory Time Limit Encinitas Country Day School Inc. v. California Coastal Com., 108 Cal.App.4th 575 (4th Dist. 2003) | |
June 2003: California Coastal Commission Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Consider Impacts Outside the Coastal Zone Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission, 107 Cal.App.4th 1030 (1st Dist. 2003). | |
May 2003: Coastal Commission Lacks Administrative Appellate Jurisdiction to Revisit a Coastal Development Permit Approval Ordered by Superior Court in Writ Proceeding in which It Was a Party City of Half Moon Bay v. Superior Court, 106 Cal.App.4th 795 (1st Dist. 2003). | |
May 2003: A Culture of Unconstitutionality at the Coastal Commission | |
March 2003: San Diego's "Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone" Does Not Apply to Federal Property Transferred for City Use Save Our NTC Inc. v. City of San Diego ___ Cal.App.4th ____, Case No. D039615 (4th Dist. Jan. 14, 2003). | |
March 2003: Legislature Considers Coastal Commission "Fix" | |
February 2003: Suspension of Oil Leases Off California's Coast Subject to Review under the State's Coastal Zone Management Act - United States Failed to Comply with the National Environmental Policy Act State of California v. Norton 311 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. Dec. 2, 2002). | |
January 2003: Coastal City Properly Relied on Emergency Exemption to CEQA in the Construction of a Seawall CalBeach Advocates v. City of Solana Beach ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. D038885 (4th Dist. Oct. 9, 2002). | |
December 2002: Legislation Requires Orange County Sanitation District Ocean Discharges to Meet Secondary Treatment Standards within Ten Years | |
November 2002: Court of Appeal Finds Offsite View Corridor Mitigation Is Consistent with Requirements of the California Coastal Act La Costa Beach Homeowners Association v. California Coastal Commission 101 Cal.App.4th 804 (2nd Dist. Aug. 29, 2002). | |
December 2001: Ninth Circuit Upholds Environmental Impact Statement for Gas and Oil Drilling Project Off the North Coast of Alaska Edwardsen v. United States Department of the Interior ___F.3d___, Case No. 99-71397 (9th Cir. Sept. 26, 2001). | |
July 2001: Airport Land... Kaczorowski v. Board of Supervisors for the County of Mendocino, et al., 88 Cal.App.4th 564 (1st Dist. 2001). | |
May 2001: Coastal Development Permit Appeals: Surprise, You’ve Got ESHA! |
|
|
Coastal Permit |
|
June 2010: First District Upholds Coastal Commission’s Order Prohibiting Discharge of Fireworks over Estuary without a Coastal Development Permit Gualala Festivals Committee v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___ A125614 (1st Dist. 2010) | |
February 2010: Second District Upholds Coastal Commission’s Denial of a Coastal Development Permit as Inconsistent with City’s Local Coastal Plan Reddell v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___ B206428 (2nd Dist. Dec. 1, 2009) | |
May 2009: Superior Court Finds City Abused Its Discretion in Denying a Mobilehome Park Conversion Application as Incomplete Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles BS 112956 (Los Angeles Cnty Super Ct 2009) | |
March 2009: Sixth District Finds Coastal Commission Failed to Make Findings that Denying a Development Permit Would Result in a ‘Taking’ in Violation of the Coastal Act McAllister v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___ H031283 (6th Dist. Dec. 30, 2008) | |
November 2008: Second District Court Upholds Ruling that the California Coastal Commission Substantially Complied with Hearing Notice Requirements North Pacifica LLC v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___ B199446 (2nd Dist. Sept. 2008) | |
July 2008: Sixth District Court Upholds $5.3 Million Mitigation Fee by California Coastal Commission as Condition of Coastal Development Permit Ocean Harbor House Homeowners Ass’n v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th ___ H031129 (6th Dist. May 23, 2008) | |
March 2008: First District Rules Coastal Commission Lacks Authority to Declare Property Environmentally Sensitive Habitat on Appeal from Grant ofCoastal Development Permit Security National Guaranty, Inc. v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___ A114647 (1st Dist. Jan. 25, 2008) | |
October 2007: New Jersey Appellate Division Finds Land Owner Entitled to Reversal of Agency Decision Denying Coastal Building Permit Siegel v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2007 WL-2126806 (N.J. App. Div. July 26, 2007) | |
July 2007: Second District Overturns Coastal Commission Denial of Permit for Gates and No Trespassing Signs on Malibu Property LT-WR, LLC v. California Coastal Commission, ___ Cal.App.4th___ B187666 (2nd Dist. May 25, 2007) |
|
|
Coastal Views |
|
|
|
Common Interest Developments |
|
|
|
Community Redevelopment Project Mitigation Payments |
|
|
|
Condemnation |
|
May 2010: In Condemnation Action, New York State Supreme Court Addresses Valuation Issues of Wetlands In the Matter of Application of the City of New York Re Acquiring Title in Fee Simple (Lemon Creek/ Sandy Brook Staten Island Bluebelt System) Cy2760/95 (N.Y. Supr. Ct. 2010) | |
November 2007: Fourth District Court Finds in Favor of Redevelopment Agency—Rejects Challenge to ‘Taking’ of Business Properties Where Right to Challenge Was Waived Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Diego v. Mesdaq ___Cal.App.4th___ (4th Dist. Aug. 31, 2007) | |
May 2007: Colorado Supreme Court Arguably Rules That an Adjudicated Water Right Is a Prerequisite for Maintaining a Ditch Condemnation Proceeding in District Court Tonko v. Mallow 06SA199 (Colo. March 19, 2007) | |
May 2005: Fourth District Court of Appeal Finds Action for Partial Condemnation for Loss of Use of Land May Co-Exist with Claim for Severance Damages San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board v. RV Communities, ___Cal.App.4th___ D042545 (4th Dist. March 29, 2005) | |
November 2004: Fourth District Court Rejects the City of Orange’s Attempt to “Take Advantage of Its Own Wrong” in Condemnation Proceeding Hurwitz v. City of Orange, ___Cal.App.4th___ G032479 (4th Dist. Sept. 24, 2004) | |
April 2003: Fourth Circuit Affirms Principle that Condemned Property Is to Be Valued as if Project for Which Property Is Condemned Does Not Exist City of San Diego v. Rancho Penasquitos Partnership 105 Cal.App.4th 1013 (4th Dist. 2003). | |
February 2003: New Jersey Court Allows Environmental Contamination to Reduce Market Value in Condemnation Proceedings The Housing Authority of the City of New Brunswick v. Suydam Investors, LLC Case No. A-5439-00T5 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Dec. 11, 2002). | |
January 2003: Cottonwood Christian Center v. Cypress Redevelopment Agency and the City of Cypress: Viewing Condemnation through the Eyes of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by Marc Alexander | |
November 2002: In Eminent Domain Action, First District Court of Appeal Finds Evidence of Comparable Sales to Redevelopment Agency Not Admissible to Determine Valuation Emeryville Redevelopment v. Harcros Pigments, Inc. 101 Cal.App.4th 1083 (1st Dist. Aug. 9, 2002). | |
October 2002: In Eminent Domain Action, Unreasonable Pre-condemnation Conduct Must be Found by the Court before Evidence of Klopping Damages May Go before the Jury City of Ripon v. Sweetin ___Cal.App.4th___,Case Nos.C036592,C037212 (3rd Dist.July 30,2002). | |
September 2002: New Jersey Court Upholds Environmental Reservation Clauses in Condemnation Actions New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Cat in the Hat, LLC., ___A.2d___, Case No.A-0974-00T3 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, July 22, 2002). | |
June 2001: Fourth Circuit Rules in City's Favor on Two Issues of First Impression under California Condemnation Law Israni v. Superior Court, ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. D036319 (4th Dist. April 23, 2001) | |
January 2001: California Department of Toxic Substances Control Issues Draft Regulations for Covenants Restricting Uses of Contaminated Property | |
January 2001: California Department of Toxic Substances Control Issues Draft Regulations for Covenants Restricting Uses of Contaminated Property |
|
|
Conditional Use Permits |
|
August 2010: USDA Issues a Special Use Permit Allowing the Use of Reclaimed Water for Snowmaking at the Arizona Snowbowl Resort near Flagstaff | |
February 2010: California Supreme Court Holds County’s Decision to Deny Application to Renew Conditional Use Permit for a Privately Owned Airport Was Not a ‘Project’ under CEQA Sunset Sky Ranch Pilots Association v. County of Sacramento, ___Cal.4th___ S165861 (Dec. 28, 2009) | |
July 2009: Second District Upholds Denial of Conditional Use Permit Based on Negative Impact on General Community Welfare SP Star Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles 173 Cal.App.4th 459 (2nd Dist. 2009) | |
March 2009: Fourth District Finds Expedited First Amendment- Related Permit Statute, and Its 21-Day Statute of Limitations Does Not Bar Third Party Litigants Stearn v. County of San Bernardino, et al., ___Cal.App.4th___ E044388 (2nd Dist. Jan. 22, 2009) | |
August 2008: Third District Court Holds Sacramento County Decision to Close Airport Not Preempted by State Law but Is a ‘Project’ Subject to CEQA Review Sunset Skyranch Pilots Association v. County of Sacramento, ___Cal.App.4th___ C055224 (3rd Dist. July 2, 2008) | |
March 2008: Second District Court Upholds City’s Extension of Conditional Use Permit Despite Separate Agreement to Discontinue Use Richeson v. Helal 158 Cal.App.4th 268 (2nd Dist. as modified Dec. 21, 2007) | |
October 2007: Ninth Circuit Finds Settlement Agreement between Los Angeles and Congregation Invalid and Unenforceable The League of Residential Neighborhood Advocates v. City of Los Angeles, ___F.3d.___ 06-56211 (9th Cir. Aug. 21, 2007) | |
June 2007: Fifth District Rejects EIR for Inadequate Project Description, Baseline Assumptions, and Improperly Deferred Mitigation San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, et al. v. County of Merced, et al. 149 Cal.App.4th 645 (5th Dist. 2007) | |
April 2007: Fourth District Holds City’s Issuance of Grading Permit Consistent with Conditional Use Permit Did Not Violate CEQA Madrigal et al. v. City of Huntington Beach, ___Cal.App.4th___ G036991 (4th Dist. Jan. 1, 2007, pub. ordered Feb. 27, 2007) | |
March 2007: First District Upholds City’s Certification of Applicant Prepared EIR and Approval of Zoning Variance for Church School Playground Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ A113289 (1st Dist. Feb. 1, 2007) | |
October 2006: Ninth Circuit Declares RLUIPA Constitutional—Holds that Sutter County Violated Rights of Religious Organization by Denying Land Use Approvals Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Yuba City v. County of Sutter, et al, ___F.3d___ 03-17343 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2006) | |
December 2005: First District Rules Inverse Condemnation Action Unripe, Rejects Application of Futility Exception to Ripeness Doctrine County of Alameda v. Superior Court (San Leandro Rock Company, Inc.), ___ Cal.App.4th___ A109576 (1st Dist. Oct. 18, 2005) | |
July 2005: Court of Appeal Confirms Attorneys Fee Award for Initiating Action that Lead to Positive Impact on Public Interest Protect Our Water v. County of Merced, ___Cal. App.4th___ F044896, unpub. op. (5th Dist. May 25, 2005) | |
June 2005: Second District Court Rejects Neighbors’ Request to Intervene in Action Brought by City of Malibu and David Geffen Regarding Site Specific Coastal Public Access City of Malibu v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___ B171650 (2nd Dist. April 25, 2005) | |
May 2005: Establishing Vested Rights for Surface Mining Operations | |
March 2005: Sierra Club Files Lawsuit to Challenge Los Angeles County’s Approval of a Spring Water Exporting Project Sierra Club v. County of Los Angeles BS094042 (filed Dec. 17, 2004 L.A. County Superior Court) | |
March 2005: Fourth District Court Rules Service of Petition Was Untimely for Conditional Use Permit Challenge and without Exception under Government Code Royal Carpet Mills, Inc. v. City of Irvine 125 Cal.App.4th 1110 (4th Dist. 2005) | |
February 2005: Second District Court Orders New City Council Hearing because L.A.Council Members Were Inattentive. Lacy Street Hospitality Service, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. B170716 (2nd Dist. Dec. 30, 2004). | |
December 2004: Attorney General Opines: Local Government May Adopt a Zoning Ordinance or Issue a Conditional Use Permit Limiting Use of a Parcel to a Senior Mobilehome Park Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen 07-704 (Oct. 20, 2004) | |
October 2004: Landowner Is Time Barred from Challenging Predecessor’s Irrevocable Offer of Dedication Made in Return for Development Entitlements Serra Canyon Co., Ltd. v. California Coastal Commission 120 Cal.App.4th 663 (2nd Dist. 2004) | |
August 2004: Controversial Incidental Take Permit Is Issued Under Riverside County’s Huge Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. | |
May 2004: Court of Appeal: Court of Appeal Denies Compensation for Water Rights Transferred in Exchange for Water Service Acosta v. Big Bear Community Serv. Dist. ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. E033363 (4th Dist. March 10, 2004). | |
June 2003: Abuse of Discretion Standard Upheld as Appropriate for EIR Review under CEQA Association of Irritated Residents, et al. v. County of Madera, et al. 107 Cal.App.4th 1383 (5th Cir. 2003). |
|
|
Condominium Conversion |
|
|
|
Conservation |
|
|
|
Conservation Easements |
|
February 2009: Conservation Easement Deal Protects Land between Folsom Lake and Auburn from Future Development | |
March 2008: Conservation Groups Contemplate Purchase of a Yolo County Ranch for Habitat Conservation and Flood Protection | |
November 2007: Legislative update | |
October 2007: Attorney General Opines that Grant of Conservation Easement Does Not Constitute a ‘Division’ of Land and Is Not Subject to Subdivision Map Act 07 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 801 (August 21, 2007) | |
November 2006: Third District Finds Purchase and Conversion of Land for Conservation Easement Not Categorically Exempt from CEQA Despite Its Environmentally Beneficial Purpose California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Board, ___Cal.App.4th___ C049919 (3rd Dist. Sept. 21, 2006) | |
January 2006: Values Evolve over In Situ Uses of Water: Land Trusts, Conservation Easements, Water Trusts and Instream Flows | |
December 2005: No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: Obstacles and Ironies in Dedicating Conservation Land in California |
February 2004: Ninth Circuit Holds that Conservation Easement Claims Brought by City after a Civil Compromise Were Not Barred by Res Judicata City of Martinez v. Texaco Trading & Transportation, Inc. et al. ___F.3d___, Case No. 02-16436 (9th Cir. Dec. 24, 2003). | |
November 2003: Ninth Circuit Holds the United States Need Not Get Approval from Landowner before Implementing a Conservation Plan on Land Subject to a Permanent Conservation Easement Big Meadows Grazing Ass’n v. United States ___F.3d___, Case No. 02- 35764 (9th Cir. Sept. 15, 2003). | |
December 2002: Conservation Easement on 13,000-acre Ranch in Sierra Valley Aims to Protect Rural Lifestyle, Ranch Viability and Environmental Values | |
October 2002: Court of Appeal: Open Space District which Made a Conveyance of Open Space Lands under the Spectre of Eminent Domain Does Not Require Voter or Legislative Approval Johnston v. Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District __Cal.App.4th___,Case No.A097121 (1st Dist.July 31,2002). |
|
|
Construction Plans |
|
|
|
Consultant Liability |
|
|
|
Contaminated Property |
|
|
|
Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing |
|
|
|
Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment |
|
|
|
Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions |
|
August 2009: Second District Court Finds Non-Owner Residents within Planned Development Lacked Standing to Enforce Governing Documents Martin v. Bridgeport Community Association, ___Cal. App.4th___ B206686 (2nd Dist. 2009). | |
May 2008: Fourth District Court Affirms Enforcement of Homeowners Association’s Unrecorded Architectural Guidelines Pacific Hills Homeowners Association v. Prun, ___Cal. App.4th___ G038244 (4th Dist. Mar. 20, 2008) | |
March 2008: Second District Court Upholds City’s Extension of Conditional Use Permit Despite Separate Agreement to Discontinue Use Richeson v. Helal 158 Cal.App.4th 268 (2nd Dist. as modified Dec. 21, 2007) | |
February 2008: Second District Court Finds Quiet Title Action to Parking Spaces Required to Be Transferred Pursuant to CC&Rs Timely Filed by Party in Posession Crestmar Owners Association v. Stapakis, ___Cal.App.4th___ B191049 (2nd Dist. Dec. 13, 2007) | |
February 2006: Second District Court Finds Feral Peafowl Are Not Instrumentalities of Palos Verdes Estates—City’s Peafowl Management Program Is Lawful Butler v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, ___Cal.App.4th___ B177260 (2nd Dist. Dec. 2, 2005) | |
November 2005: Fourth District Holds Subdivision Lands Act’s Regulation of Architectural Control Committees Inapplicable to Standard Subdivision, but Not a Bar to Suit Property Owners of Whispering Palms, Inc. v. Newport Pacific, Inc 132 Cal.App.4th 666 (4th Dist. 2005) | |
October 2005: Environmental Enforcement: California and Other States Grapple with Land Use Covenants on Federal Property | |
August 2005: Fourth District Court Finds Homeowner Must Remove Encroachments Erroneously Approved by Homeowners Association Woodridge Escondido Property Owners Association v. Nielsen, ___Cal.App.4th___ D044294 (4th Dist. May 25, 2005; pub. ordered June 16, 2005) | |
August 2004: California Supreme Court to Review Two Decisions Regarding Inter-Agency Jurisdiction over Timber Harvesting Operations Big Creek Lumber v. County of Santa Cruz 115 Cal.App.4th 952 (6th Dist. 2004) | |
July 2004: City Not Entitled to Impose Additional Conditions on Prepayment of Loan Made under City’s Affordable Housing Program. Dieckmeyer v. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, ___Cal.App.4th___ G031869 (4th Dist. May 21, 2004). | |
June 2004: District Court Upholds Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Regulations Protecting Scenic Quality of Lake Tahoe. Committee for Reasonable Regulation of Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, _F.Supp.2d___ (D. Nev. March 29, 2004). | |
January 2001: California Department of Toxic Substances Control Issues Draft Regulations for Covenants Restricting Uses of Contaminated Property | |
January 2001: California Department of Toxic Substances Control Issues Draft Regulations for Covenants Restricting Uses of Contaminated Property |
|
|
Crop Fallowing |
|
|
|
Cumulative Impacts Assessment Areas |
|
|
|
Deed Restrictions |
|
|
|
Delta Vision Strategic Plan |
|
|
|
Desert Lands |
|
|
|
Developer Agreements |
|
August 2010: Fourth District Finds a Siting Agreement Does Not Require CEQA Review if It Does Not Constitute a Commitment to Proceed with the Project City of Santee v. County of San Diego, ___Cal.App.4th___ D055310 (4th Dist. 2010) |
August 2010: Fourth District Holds Additional CEQA Review Is Not Required Where a Public Agency Does Not Have Discretionary Approval over a Project San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. City of San Diego 185 Cal.App.4th 924 (4th Dist. 2010) | |
November 2009: Riverside County Enacts a New Ordinance to Facilitate Subdivision Improvement Agreements | |
March 2008: Fifth District Court Invalidates Ordinance Granting Development Agreement Zoning Exception as Violating Government Code Uniformity Requirements Neighbors In Support of Appropriate Land Use, et al. v. County of Tuolumne, et al., ___Cal.App.4th___ F051690 (5th Dist. Dec. 7, 2007) | |
August 2007: First District Affirms Ruling that Citizen Group Missed CEQA’s Statute of Limitations to Challenge Approval of Redevelopment Project Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda v. City of Alameda, et al. 149 Cal.App.4th 91 (1st Dist. 2007) | |
January 2006: First District Revisits Prevailing Wage Law in Connection with Redevelopment Agency’s Reimbursement of Land Acquisition Costs to Developer Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Chuck Cake, Unpub. Op. A107763 and A107769 (1st Dist. Nov. 22, 2005) | |
December 2005: Salton Sea Authority Considers Development Plan for Restoration of the Sea | |
November 2005: Second District Finds Settlement Reached between City and Developer in Closed Session Violates the Brown Act Trancas Property Owners Association v. City of Malibu, ___Cal.App.4th___ B174674 (2nd Dist. Sept. 26, 2005) | |
December 2003: Newhall Ranch: A Study in Patience and Compromise in an Open and Exhaustive Planning and Environmental Review Process | |
October 2003: Contractual Right to Negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement Does Not Give Rise to a Property Interest that Is Subject to the Power of Eminent Domain San Jose Parking Inc. v. Superior Court ___Cal.App. 4th___, Case No. H024871 (6th Dist. July 29, 2003). | |
May 2003: Statute of Limitations for Claims Involving Subdivisions Did Not Apply to Breach of Contract Claims Involving a Development Agreement The Legacy Group v. City of Wasco ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. F038382 (5th Dist. March 13, 2003). | |
August 2002: Developers to the Rescue: Indemnifying Public Entities for Litigation Arising Out of the Decision to Issue Development Permits | |
June 2001: Living with the Cost of Development: A Roadmap to Development Fees and Alternatives |
|
|
Development Conditions |
|
|
|
Development Fees |
|
August 2010: Fifth District Upholds Adoption of Several Development Impact Fees—Finds Fees Survive Scrutiny under Mitigation Fee Act and Quimby Act Homebuilders Association of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City of Lemoore, ___Cal.App.4th___ F057671 (5th Dist. June 9, 2010) | |
April 2009: Fifth District Rules Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees Must Be ‘Reasonably Related’ to the Impacts Generated by New Development Project Building Industry Association of Central California v. City of Patterson, ___ Cal.App.4th___ F054785 (5th Dist. Mar. 2, 2009) | |
June 2006: City of Santa Cruz under No Obligation to Provide a Private Open Space Credit against Quimby Act Park and Recreation Fees Assessed against Developer Branciforte Heights, LLC v. City of Santa Cruz, ___ Cal.App.4th ____ H028864 (6th Dist. April 19, 2006) | |
May 2006: Legislative update | |
February 2006: Building Permit and Plan Review Fees Are Not Fees Imposed on a ‘Development Project’ under the Mitigation Fee Act—But May Still Be Challenged as ‘Excessive’ Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga, ___Cal.4th___ S117590 (Cal. 2005) | |
April 2004: Statute of Limitations Period for Development Fee Challenges Will Not Apply Where City Failed to Follow Statutory Requirements Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Encinitas ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. D041162 (4th Dist. Feb. 10, 2004). | |
October 2003: Court of Appeal Upholds Los Angeles Unified School District’s Adoption of Level Two School Impact Fees Coalition for Affordable Housing v. City of Los Angeles Board of Education Case No. B 159777, unpublished opinion (2nd Dist. July 1, 2003). | |
August/September 2003: Challenge to Building and Permit Fees Must Be Brought through a Validation Action Pursuant to Government Code Sections 66014 and 66106 Barratt American, Incorp. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. E032578 (4th Dist. May 28, 2003). | |
March 2003: Third Circuit Establishes "Shocks the Conscience" Test for Land Use Based Substantive Due Process Claims United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. The Township of Warrington, PA, et al. ___F.3d___, Case No. 01-3533 (3rd Cir. Jan. 14, 2003) | |
July 2002: Municipality May Not Impose a Flat Fee on Water, Refuse, or Sewer Utilities under Proposition 218 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Roseville 97 Cal.App.4th 637 (3rd Dist. 2002) | |
June 2002: I.R.S. Rules Development Impact Fees Must Be Allocated to a Project's Cost Basis | |
June 2001: Living with the Cost of Development: A Roadmap to Development Fees and Alternatives |
|
|
Development Moratoria |
|
|
|
Development Permits |
|
July 2008: Ninth Circuit Finds District Court Erred in Awarding Developer Damages and Attorney’s Fees for Alleged Equal Protection Violation North Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica, ___F.3d___ 05-16069, 05-16146, 06-15102, 06-15131, 06, 15631, 06-15772 (9th Cir. May 13, 2008) | |
August/September 2003: Challenge to Building and Permit Fees Must Be Brought through a Validation Action Pursuant to Government Code Sections 66014 and 66106 Barratt American, Incorp. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. E032578 (4th Dist. May 28, 2003). | |
August 2002: Developers to the Rescue: Indemnifying Public Entities for Litigation Arising Out of the Decision to Issue Development Permits | |
May 2001: Billboard Advertiser Cannot State a Cause of Action under the Permit Streamlining Act until the Lead Agency Has Taken Specific Action under CEQA Eller Media Company v. City of Los Angeles, ___ Cal.App.4th ___, Case No. B142004 (2nd Dist. Mar. 21, 2001). |
|
|
Diminution in Value |
|
April 2008: aaa aaa aaa |
|
|
Disabled Persons |
|
|
|
Drainage Easement |
|
|
|
Easement by Necessity |
|
|
|
Easements |
|
August 2010: Sixth District Upholds Nominal Compensation for Railroad Property Condemnation Action City of San Jose v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 185 Cal.App.4th 624 (6th Dist. 2010) | |
July 2010: Fourth District Rejects ‘Public Streets, Highways, and Service Easements Vacation Law’ as Exclusive Method to Vacate Public Rights-Of-Way and Easements for Redevelopment Projects Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego, ___Cal.App.4th___ 37-2008-00090571-CU-MC-CTL (4th Dist. 2010) | |
June 2010: Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that Governmental Entities Are Not Immune from Ditch Easement Claims Upper Platte and Beaver Canal Co. v. Riverview Commons General Improvement District, ___P.3d___ 09CA0769 (Colo.App. April 15, 2010) | |
April 2010: News from the West | |
March 2010: Second District Finds a Prescriptive Easement in Water Pipeline from a Gravity-Fed Spring Brezina v. Cooper, Unpub. Op B210125 (2nd Dist. Jan. 22, 2010.) | |
March 2010: New Jersey Appellate Division Finds Riparian Easement Remains Despite 20-Day Ownership by Dominant Estate McAdams v. Dagit Brothers Holding Company L-4895-06 (N.J. App. Div. Feb. 17, 2010) | |
January 2010: New Hampshire Supreme Court Finds Owner of Subdivision Has No Right to Access Nearby Lake Burke v. Pierro 2008-750 (New Hampshire Dec. 16, 2009) | |
December 2009: Montana Supreme Court Construes Easements over Largest Fresh Water Lake West of the Mississippi Mattson v. Montana Power Co. 2009 MT 286, 215 P.3d 675 (Mont. 2009) | |
December 2009: News from the West | |
October 2009: New Mexico Court Holds Mutual Use of Well under Well Share Agreement to be an Interest in Real Property as an Easement Appurtenant Skeen v. Boyles 2009-NMCA-080 (N.M. App. 2009) | |
October 2009: Landowner Denied Right to Build Dock into Bar Harbor Cove Based upon Aesthetics Anthony Uliano v. Board of Environmental Protection Han-08-643 (Maine Aug. 13, 2009) | |
October 2009: New Hampshire Supreme Court Finds Non-Waterfront Land Owner Has Right to Access Lake Mansur v. Muskopf v. Swallow Point Association 2008 – 776 (New Hampshire Aug. 5, 2009) | |
August 2009: Maine Supreme Court Finds Easement Permits Resort to Dominate Pond Owned by Lakeside Condominium Association Lakeside at Pleasant Mountain Condominium Association v. Town of Bridgton CUM-09-25 (Maine July 7, 2009) | |
June 2009: Landowner with Easement Right of ‘Bathing and Boating’ Cannot Build Bridge to Adjacent Parcel She Does Not Own to Enjoy Easement Town of Nantucket v. Lerner 367681 (Mass. Land Ct. March 31, 2009) | |
June 2009: Second District Upholds Grant of Equitable Easement for Ingress and Egress; Denies Damage Award Linthicum v. Butterfield et al., ___Cal.App.4th___ B199645 (2nd Dist. April 2, 2009) | |
May 2009: Supreme Court Holds Recreational Use Immunity Statute Shielded PG&E from Personal Injury Claims Sustained on Utility Easement Prince v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.,___Cal.4th___ S149344 (Mar. 19, 2009) | |
April 2009: New York Appellate Division Remands Case Because It Found Purchase Agreements for Contiguous Parcels Were Ambiguous as to Boundaries and Hydro-Electric Easement Jordan v. Vogel 59 A.D.3d 919 (N.Y.App.Div. Feb. 26, 2009) | |
March 2009: Colorado Supreme Court Imposes New Quantification Requirement for the Adverse Possession of Water Rights Archuleta v. Gomez 08SA109 (Colo. Jan. 20, 2009) | |
January 2009: The Common Law Taketh Away: Revocation of Offers of Dedication under Biagini v. Beckham | |
December 2008: Fourth District Court Upholds Clear Language Granting Exclusive Use of Easement to Bar Servient Tenement from Asserting Limited Rights of Access Gray v. McCormick, ___Cal.App.4th___ G039738 (4th Dist. Oct. 23, 2008) | |
October 2008: Utah Supreme Court Further Defines Extent of Public’s Right to Recreate in Waters of the State Conaster v. Johnson, 2008 Utah 48, ___P.3d___ (Utah July 18, 2008) | |
August 2008: New York Trial Court Finds New York City Has Riparian Rights through Industrial Park City of New York v. Gowanus Industrial Park 19083/05 (N.Y. Supreme Court, Kings County, June 27, 2008) | |
August 2008: Third District Holds Statutory Offer of Road Dedication May Be Revoked under Common Law to Preclude Acceptance by Public Use while Pending for Acceptance by Public Entity Biagini v. Beckham, ___Cal.App.4th___ C054915 (3rd Dist. June 9, 2008) |
April 2008: aaa aaaa aaa | |
February 2008: Fourth District Court Confirms Date of Deposit as Valuation Date in Eminent Domain Proceeding for Water Pipeline Easement Eastern Municipal Water District v. Superior Court of Riverside County (Tajik), 157 Cal.App.4th 1245 (4th Dist. 2007) | |
December 2007: Rhode Island Supreme Court Finds Landlocked Land Owner Has No Easement by Necessity across City Flooded Former Access Road Ondis v. City of Woonsocket 2004-285 (R.I. Nov. 9, 2007) | |
July 2007: Second District Finds Deed Conveying Easement for Garage Did Not Violate Subdivision Map Act Blackmore v. Powell, ___Cal.App.4th___ B185326 (2nd. Dist. May 22, 2007) | |
July 2007: Connecticut Supreme Court Denies Landowner Right to Install Dock Pursuant to Water Easement Stefanoni v. Duncan 107585 (Conn. June 17, 19, 2007) | |
May 2007: Colorado Supreme Court Arguably Rules That an Adjudicated Water Right Is a Prerequisite for Maintaining a Ditch Condemnation Proceeding in District Court Tonko v. Mallow 06SA199 (Colo. March 19, 2007) | |
April 2007: Fifth District Concludes Property Transfer Is Not a CEQA Project in the Absence of Known, Imminent Development Plans Friends of the Sierra Railroad v. Tuolumne Park and Recreation District, ___Cal.App.4th ___ F050117 (5th Dist. Jan. 12, 2007) | |
December 2006: Texas Court of Appeals Clarifies When the Public Has the Right to Use Navigable Waters Flowing over Private Land Hix v. Robertson 10-05-00214-CV (Tex.App—Waco Oct. 18, 2006) | |
December 2006: Landowner Denied Road Access to Water Accessible, but Landlocked Property Welch v. Maine CUM-06-92 (Maine Oct. 26, 2006) | |
December 2006: Vermont Supreme Court Rejects Historic Rule that Water Access Defeats Easement by Necessity Berge v. Vermont 2005-437 (Vt. Nov. 9, 2006) | |
October 2006: Finding Trial Court Misinterpreted Scope of Easement, Fourth District Reverses Inverse Condemnation and Direct Taking Awards Against Fallbrook Public Utility District Red Mountain, LLC v. Fallbrook Public Utility District, ___Cal.App.4th___ D044546 (4th Dist. Aug. 18, 2006) | |
May 2006: Second District Holds Easement Deed Creating a Further Right to Grant Easements for Like Purposes Permitted the Dominant Tenement to Convey Easements to Adjacent Properties Newmyer v. Parklands Ranch, ___Cal.App.4th___ B180461 and B184674 (2nd Dist. March 23, 2006) | |
January 2006: Georgia Court of Appeals Explains Responsibilities of Dam Operators to Owners Surrounding Artificial Lake Bishop Eddie Long Ministries, Inc. v. Dillard, 272 Ga.App. 894, 613 S.E.2d 673, 5 FCDR 1110 (2005) | |
December 2005: Sixth District Finds Homeowners Have No Legal Remedy under the Solar Shade Control Act against County Trees Shading Solar Panels Zipperer v. County of Santa Clara, ___Cal.App.4th___ H028455 (6th Dist. Oct. 28, 2005) | |
July 2005: Fifth District Court Finds Installation of Fiber Optic Cable Permitted in Public Right-of-Way Easement Anderson v. Time Warner Telecom of California, Inc., ___Cal.App.4th ___ (5th Dist. May 13, 2005) | |
April 2005: Third District Court Finds Specificity in Indenture Prevents Owners of Dominant Estate from Erecting Gates across Easement Van Klompenburg, et al. v. Berghold 126 Cal.App.4th 345 (3rd Dist. 2005) | |
April 2005: Is the Grass Really Greener on the Other Side? A Primer on Property Boundary Disputes for the Land Use Practitioner | |
August 2004: Encroachers Beware: The Sun Is Setting on the Wild West Doctrine of Adverse Possession | |
June 2004: Idaho Legislature Clarifies Irrigation Easement Law | |
June 2004: U.S. District Court Rejects the Forest Service's Issuance of Special-Use Permits Without Bypass Flow Requirements Trout Unlimited v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al., ___F.Supp.2d___ 96-WY2686-WD (D. Colo. April 30, 2004). | |
May 2004: Second Appellate District Holds That Adverse Possession May Not Masquerade as a Prescriptive Easement Kapner v. Meadowlark Ranch Ass’n ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. B163525 (2nd Dist. March 17, 2004). | |
August 2003: Development Spurs Revisions in Ditch Easement Case Law in Colorado | |
December 2002: Third District Court of Appeal Holds "Common Grantor" Requirement for Easement by Necessity May Be Satisfied where Federal Government Was the Common Grantor Kellogg v. Garcia 102 Cal.App.4th 796 (3rd Dist. Oct. 2, 2002). | |
October 2002: Court of Appeal: Open Space District which Made a Conveyance of Open Space Lands under the Spectre of Eminent Domain Does Not Require Voter or Legislative Approval Johnston v. Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District __Cal.App.4th___,Case No.A097121 (1st Dist.July 31,2002). | |
October 2002: Historic Road through Yuba County Goldfields, Offered for Dedication by the United States and Accepted and Held By Yuba County, Remains a Public Road Western Aggregates, Inc. v. County of Yuba 100 Cal.App.4th 259 (3rd Dist.2002). | |
June 2002: The Public Cannot Gain a Prescriptive Easement over Private Property Based on Prior Recreational Use Luis Michael Bustillos v. Michael Kevin Murphy 96 Cal.App.4th 1277 (4th Dist. Mar. 20, 2002). | |
May 2002: Ninth Circuit Finds Federal Taking Claim Barred where Claimant Had Knowledge of Already-accomplished Physical Taking Daniel, et al v. County of Santa Barbara, et al. 282 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. March 12, 2002). | |
April 2001: Insurers Issuing Comprehensive Liability Policy Covering "Tangible" Property Loss Owe No Duty to Defend in Implied Easement Dispute Kazi V. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. Et Al., 24 Cal.4th 871 (Jan. 18, 2001). |
|
|
Economic Feasibility Analysis |
|
|
|
Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds |
|
|
|
Electric Vehicles |
|
|
|
Electricity Supply |
|
|
|
Eminent Domain |
|
August 2010: Sixth District Upholds Nominal Compensation for Railroad Property Condemnation Action City of San Jose v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 185 Cal.App.4th 624 (6th Dist. 2010) | |
August 2009: Second District Holds Business Owner with No Ownership Interest in Property Acquired by Eminent Domain May Recover for Business Goodwill Los Angeles Unified School District v. Pulgarin, ___Cal. App.4th___ B206892 (2nd Dist. Jun. 23, 2009). | |
July 2009: Ninth Circuit Holds Government Official or Entity May Receive Noerr-Pennington Immunity for Petitioning Involved in Eminent Domain Proceeding— Finds Government Activity Subject to ‘Sham’ Exception Kearney v. Foley, ___F.3d___ 07-55566 (9th Cir. May 12, 2009) | |
April 2009: Third District Invalidates City’s Eminent Domain Attempt where Resolution of Necessity Failed to Specify the Public Use City of Stockton v. Marina Towers LLC, ___Cal. App.4th___ CV022054 (3rd Dist. Feb. 13, 2009) | |
February 2009: First District Affirms No Compensation for Goodwill when Undeveloped Parcel, Approved for Multi-Unit Mixed-Use, Is ‘Taken’ by Eminent Domain City and County of San Francisco v. Coyne, ___Cal.App.4th___ A118222 (1st Dist. Dec. 5, 2008) | |
July 2008: California Voters Reject Comprehensive Limitations on Eminent Domain | |
May 2008: First District Finds in Eminent Domain, Owners of Residence Not Entitled to Temporary Severance Damages Where No Evidence of Actual Injury Is Presented City of Fremont v. Fisher 160 Cal.App.4th 666 (1st Dist. 2008) | |
February 2008: Fourth District Court Confirms Date of Deposit as Valuation Date in Eminent Domain Proceeding for Water Pipeline Easement Eastern Municipal Water District v. Superior Court of Riverside County (Tajik), 157 Cal.App.4th 1245 (4th Dist. 2007) | |
February 2008: Fourth District Court Confirms Trial Date for Valuation in Eminent Domain—Distinguishes Mt. San Jacinto Community College District Decision San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board v. RV Communities, ___Cal.App.4th___ GIC774602-1 (4th Dist. Dec. 21, 2007) | |
January 2008: Second District Court Remands Award of Attorneys’ Fees to Condemnees in Redevelopment Agency Eminent Domain Suit Redevelopment Agency of the City of Long Beach v. Morales, ___Cal.App.4th___ BC 326364 (2nd Dist. Nov. 28, 2007) | |
December 2007: Fourth District Court Holds Pre-Election Challenge to Eminent Domain Initiative Does Not Violate Anti-SLAPP Law City of Riverside v. Stansbury, ___Cal.App.4th___ EO40125 & EO40973 (4th Dist. Oct. 12, 2007) | |
October 2007: First District Rejects Determination of Comparative Equity Analysis in Reviewing Consolidated Condemnation Cases State Route 4 Bypass Authority v. Superior Court, ___Cal.App.4th___ A116834, A116851 (1st Dist. Aug. 8, 2007) | |
October 2007: Second District Court Holds ‘Cost to Create’ Is Appropriate Method for Calculating Loss of Goodwill in Eminent Domain Valuation Inglewood Redevelopment Agency v. Aklilu, ___Cal.App.4th___ B185107 (2nd Dist. July 30, 2007) | |
April 2007: California Supreme Court Holds ‘Quick Take’ Valuation Date and Waiver Provisions Constitutional Mt. San Jacinto Community College District v. Superior Court, ___Cal.4th___ S132251 (Cal. Feb. 22, 2007) | |
April 2007: Legislative update | |
January 2007: Water Legislation 2006: Out-Of-State Influences Impact Legislation in a Constructive but Uneventful Year | |
December 2006: California Voters Reject Proposition 90 Eminent Domain Measure by Narrow Margin | |
October 2006: ‘Protect Our Homes Act’ Initiative Seeking Constitutional Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot | |
May 2006: Second District Court Upholds Amended Hollywood Redevelopment Plan—Substantial Evidence Supported the Finding of Blight Blue v. City of Los Angeles, ___Cal.App.4th___ B180319 (2nd Dist. March 1, 2006) | |
April 2006: Second District Determines the Probable Date of Valuation in Eminent Domain Action Is the Date of Deposit of Probable Compensation City of Santa Clarita v. NTS Technical Systems, ___Cal.App.4th___ B169596 (2nd Dist. Feb. 3, 2006) | |
March 2006: Fourth District Finds Trial Court Erroneously Prevented Jury from Considering Claim of Severance Damages in Action for Eminent Domain Metropolitan Water District of Southern California v. Campus Crusade for Christ 135 Cal.App.4th 568 (4th Dist. 2006) | |
February 2006: Fourth District Court Upholds Early Property Valuation in Quick Take Eminent Domain Proceedings Despite Substantial Increase in Property Value Cathedral City Redevelopment Agency v. Stickles, ___Cal.App.4th___ E036456, (4th Dist. Dec. 19, 2005) | |
December 2005: 2005 Land use Legislation Wrap Up | |
August 2005: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds the Taking of Private Property for Economic Development Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut, et al., ___U.S.___ 04-108 (U.S. June 23, 2005) | |
August 2005: Thrice More into the Breach: The U.S. Supreme Court Takes on Takings in Kelo, San Remo and Lingle | |
July 2005: Fourth District Court Determines Installation of Manufactured Homes Are “Improvements Pertaining to Realty” under Eminent Domain Law Escondido Union School District v. Casa Suenos De Oro, Inc., ___Cal.App.4th___ DO43104 (4th Dist. May 26, 2005) | |
July 2005: Legislative update | |
April 2005: Fifth District Court Finds a Jury May Consider Historical Use of Building in Determining Its Fair Market Value Sierra View Local Health Care District v. Sierra View Medical Plaza Associates, LP, ___Cal.App.4th___ F043467 (5th Dist. Jan. 6, 2005, modified Feb. 3, 2005) | |
April 2005: Second District Court Sets the Date of Deposit as Key in Property Valuation in Eminent Domain “Quick Take” Action Mt. San Jacinto Community College District v. Superior Court of Riverside County 126 Cal.App.4th 619 (2nd Dist. 2005) | |
March 2005: Fourth District Court Grants New Trial in Eminent Domain Matter after Finding Jury’s Damage Award Was “Against the Law” City of San Diego v. D.R. Horton San Diego Holding Company, Inc., ___Cal.App.4th___ D043425 (4th Dist., Feb. 7, 2005) | |
February 2005: Using Eminent Domain to Benefit Private Development: Public Use or a Public Excuse | |
June 2004: Idaho Legislature Clarifies Irrigation Easement Law | |
April 2004: Sixth District Court Upholds City’s Exercise of Eminent Domain to Create Easements for City Road Improvements City of Saratoga v. Hinz ___Cal.App.4th ___ Case No. H023549 (6th Dist. Feb. 20, 2004). | |
February 2004: Central Valley City Proposes to Exercise Eminent Domain to Protect the City’s Groundwater Source within Another County | |
October 2003: Contractual Right to Negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement Does Not Give Rise to a Property Interest that Is Subject to the Power of Eminent Domain San Jose Parking Inc. v. Superior Court ___Cal.App. 4th___, Case No. H024871 (6th Dist. July 29, 2003). | |
August/September 2003: Diminution in Value of Improvements and Fixtures Not Compensable as Severance Damages in Roadway Condemnation Action City of Carlsbad v. Rudvalis 109 Cal.App.4th 667 (2003). | |
July 2003: Attorney General Opines: Two Parcels Separated by 700 Feet Were Legally Created under the Subdivision Map Act when Irrigation District Condemned the Land between Them 01 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 615 (May 15, 2003) | |
April 2003: Fourth Circuit Affirms Principle that Condemned Property Is to Be Valued as if Project for Which Property Is Condemned Does Not Exist City of San Diego v. Rancho Penasquitos Partnership 105 Cal.App.4th 1013 (4th Dist. 2003). | |
November 2002: In Eminent Domain Action, First District Court of Appeal Finds Evidence of Comparable Sales to Redevelopment Agency Not Admissible to Determine Valuation Emeryville Redevelopment v. Harcros Pigments, Inc. 101 Cal.App.4th 1083 (1st Dist. Aug. 9, 2002). | |
October 2002: Court of Appeal: Open Space District which Made a Conveyance of Open Space Lands under the Spectre of Eminent Domain Does Not Require Voter or Legislative Approval Johnston v. Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District __Cal.App.4th___,Case No.A097121 (1st Dist.July 31,2002). | |
October 2002: In Eminent Domain Action, Unreasonable Pre-condemnation Conduct Must be Found by the Court before Evidence of Klopping Damages May Go before the Jury City of Ripon v. Sweetin ___Cal.App.4th___,Case Nos.C036592,C037212 (3rd Dist.July 30,2002). | |
June 2002: Water Utility May Not Condemn Property for NonWater Related Services Patel v. Southern California Water Company ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. G023360 (4th Dist. April 16, 2002).) | |
June 2002: Property Owners May Present Evidence, at Eminent Domain Proceeding, of Increases in the Fair Market Value of Property Where to Not Do So Might Limit Just Compensation Saratoga Fire Protection District v. W.C. Hackett et al. ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. H022553 (6th Dist. April. 16, 2002). | |
March 2002: Fourth District Finds Redevelopment Agency's Acquisition of Private Property through Eminent Domain Proper Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista v. Rados Brothers ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. D037231(4th Dist. Dec. 15, 2001). |
|
|
Encroachments |
|
|
|
Environmental Due Diligence Site Assessments |
|
|
|
Environmental Impact Report Certification |
|
|
|
Environmental Impact Reports |
|
August 2010: Fourth District Holds Additional CEQA Review Is Not Required Where a Public Agency Does Not Have Discretionary Approval over a Project San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. City of San Diego 185 Cal.App.4th 924 (4th Dist. 2010) | |
June 2010: First District Affirms Alternatives Analysis in Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s EIR for a Long Range Development Plan Lesley Emmington Jones, et al. v. Regents of the University of California, 183 Cal.App.4th 818 (1st Dist. 2010) | |
May 2010: First District Upholds Trial Court Ruling that City’s Approval of General Plan Update Violated State Aeronautics Act and CEQA Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville, ___Cal. App.4th___ A122205 (1st Dist. April 12, 2010) | |
May 2010: Fifth District Finds Addition of ‘Supercenter’ to Project Does Not Necessarily Require an Urban Decay Analysis in a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Melom v. City of Madera, ___Cal.App.4th___ F055024 (5th Dist. March 24, 2010) | |
April 2010: Supreme Court Finds Agency Erred in Using Maximum Permitted Operational Levels as Baseline in Determination that Project Would Have a Significant Environmental Impact Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al., ___Cal.4th___ S161190 (March 15, 2010) | |
March 2010: Supreme Court Rules 30-Day Statute of Limitations Applies where Agency Has Posted an NOD, Regardless of Nature of CEQA Violation Alleged Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, ___ Cal.4th___ S.163680(Feb. 11, 2010) | |
March 2010: Second District Finds EIR Was Needed before Enactment of an Ordinance Prohibiting Certain Retail Stores from Providing Plastic Bags to Customers Save the PlasticBag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach, ___Cal.App.4th___ B215788 (2nd Dist. Jan. 27, 2010) | |
February 2010: Second District Court Upholds Environmental Impact Report, Paving the Way for a Water Transfer Planning and Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency, ___Cal.App.4th___ B200673 (2nd Dist. Dec. 17, 2009) | |
February 2010: Fourth District Requires an EIR on a General Plan Amendment, Declines to Overturn Approvals of Tentative Parcel Maps Inyo Citizens For Better Planning v. Inyo County Board of Supervisors, ___Cal.App.4th___ E046646, (4th Dist. Dec. 12, 2009) | |
February 2010: Third District Dismisses CEQA Claims for Failure to Make a Written Request for Hearing within 90 Days of Filing the Complaint County of Sacramento v. Superior Court, ___Cal. App.4th___ C062025, (3rd Dist. Dec. 29, 2009) | |
December 2009: First District Rules Consultant Hired by County to Prepare EIR Owed No Duty to Developer to Timely Complete the Document Lake Almanor Associates L.P. v. Huffman-Broadway Groups, Inc., ___Cal.App.4th___ A122563 (1st Dist. Oct. 30, 2009) | |
November 2009: Sixth District Upholds CEQA Alternatives Analysis Based on a Finding of Infeasibility Due to Policy Considerations California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz, ___Cal.App.4th___ H032502 (6th Dist. Sept. 18, 2009) | |
November 2009: Second District Holds a City May Terminate Its Environmental Review of a Proposed Development Project before Completion of an EIR Las Lomas Land Company, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, ___Cal.App.4th___ B213637 (2nd Dist. Sept. 17, 2009) | |
October 2009: Third District Finds Modified EIR Need Not Be Re- Approved by Planning Commission Before Certification by City Council Tracy First v. City of Tracy, ___Cal.App.4th___ CO59227 (3rd Dist. Aug. 27, 2009) | |
October 2009: Second District Rules School District Complied with CEQA in Certifying an EIR for Construction of High School City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School District, ___Cal.App.4th___ B207221 (2nd Dist. Aug. 17, 2009) | |
August 2009: Draft Environmental Assessment Released for San Joaquin River Restoration Program Interim Flows Project | |
August 2009: Superior Court Sets Aside Final EIR for Refinery Expansion Project as Inadequate as to Project Description and GHG Mitigation Measures Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond N08-1429 (Contra Costa Super. Ct. June 4, 2009). | |
May 2009: Third District Rules City Violated General Plan Policy Requiring ‘Coordination’ with Agencies Regarding Mitigating Impacts to Wetlands and Species California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova, ___Cal.App.4th___ C057018 (3rd Dist. Mar. 24, 2009) | |
April 2009: Examining the Importance of the California Supreme Court’s Decision in Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood | |
April 2009: Sacramento Superior Court Upholds City’s Approval of Residential Development Project and Denies Petition Challenging Sufficiency of the EIR Clover Valley Foundation, et al. v. City of Rocklin, et al. 34-2007-00002871-CU-WM-GDS (Sac. County Super. Ct. 2009) | |
January 2009: California Supreme Court Finds Agreement Conditioned on Developer’s Future Compliance with CEQA May Be Deemed a ‘Project Approval’ Requiring CEQA Review Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood 45 Cal.4th 16 (Cal. 2008) | |
August 2008: California Supreme Court Upholds CalFed Environmental Impact Report in Bay-Delta Coordinated Proceedings Case |
August 2008: Water Resources and Climate Change: Accommodating the Demise of ‘What’s Past Is Prologue’ | |
July 2008: Fourth District Court Holds Challenge Brought within 30 Days of Posting Amended Notice of Determination Timely Filed and Upholds Analysis in Supplemental EIR Sierra Club v. City of Orange, ___Cal.App.4th___ G037999 (4th Dist. May 30, 2008) | |
July 2008: California Supreme Court Bay-Delta EIR Decision Upholds Limiting Project Alternatives Based on Project Objectives, Upholds General Water Supply Analysis, and Upholds Overall Programmatic Level of Impact Review | |
April 2008: aaa aaa aaa | |
March 2008: First District Court Holds Litigation Privilege Protects Communications Made by Project Proponent during CEQA Environmental Review Process People ex rel Gallegos v. Pacific Lumber Company et al., 158 Cal.App.4th 950 (1st Dist. 2008) | |
March 2008: Santa Cruz Superior Court Upholds Arana Gulch Master Plan EIR Adopted by City of Santa Cruz California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz CV 154966 (Santa Cruz Sup. Ct. Nov. 9, 2007) | |
January 2008: Superior Court Denies Challenge to EIR for Water Acquisition from Kern County Water Banking and Recovery Program California Water Impact Network, et al. v. Castaic Lake Water Agency, et al. BS106546, Los Angeles County Super. Ct., Nov. 19, 2007 | |
December 2007: DWR’s Long-Awaited ‘Monterey Plus’ Draft EIR Is Released for Public Comment | |
October 2007: Combating Global Warming through the California Environmental Quality Act | |
October 2007: Second District Upholds City’s Use of Addendum under CEQA where Revised Project Will Not Result in New Significant Impacts or Increase Severity of Disclosed Impacts Mani Brothers Real Estate Group v. City of Los Angeles, ___Cal.App.4th___ B194309 (2nd Dist. Aug. 3, 2007) | |
July 2007: Fifth District Issues Modification to Woodward Park Case; Judgment Left Unaltered Woodward Park Homeowners Association, Inc. et al., v. City of Fresno et al. 149 Cal.App.4th 892 (5th Dist. 2007) | |
June 2007: Superior Court Allows River Islands Development to Continue without Consideration of the Flood Effects of Global Climate Change NRDC, et al. v. Reclamation Board et al. 06CS01228 (Sacramento County Superior Court) | |
June 2007: First District Rules EIR Required for Timberland-to- Vineyard Conversion with Potential Impacts to Watershed and ‘Sediment and Temperature Impaired’ Salmon Sierra Club v. California Department of Forestry, ___Cal.App.4th___ A113774 (1st Dist. Mar. 29, 2007) | |
June 2007: Fifth District Rules against City under CEQA for Inadequate EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations Woodward Park Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. v. City of Fresno, et al. 149 Cal.App.4th 892 (5th Dist. 2007) | |
May 2007: Superior Court Rules Castaic Lake Water Agency Was Proper Lead Agency for Water Transfer EIR— Water Transfer Agreement Is Final and Cannot Be Set Aside Planning and Conservation League, et al. v. Castaic Lake Water Agency, et al. BS098724 (Los Angeles Co. Super. Ct. April 2, 2007) | |
May 2007: Groups File CEQA Challenges to U.C. Campus Expansion Plans—Win Preliminary Injunction Panoramic Hill Association v. Regents of the University of California; City of Berkeley v. University of California, Berkeley; California Oak Foundation et al., v. Regents of the University of California RG06-301644, RG06-302934, RG06-302967 (Alameda County Superior Court) | |
April 2007: California Supreme Court Imposes Significant New Requirements for Analysis of Water Supplies for Land Use Plans under CEQA Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova 40 Cal.4th 412, petitions for rehearing pending (2007) | |
April 2007: First District Holds High Financial Cost of Alternatives Does Not Automatically Render Them ‘Infeasible’ under CEQA Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside 147 Cal.App.4th 587 (1st Dist. 2007) | |
March 2007: California Supreme Court Rejects Rancho Cordova EIR’s Water Supply Analysis Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova, ___Cal.4th___ S132972 (Feb. 1, 2007) | |
March 2007: The Water Supply-Land Use Waltz Plays On: The California Supreme Court’s Decision in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova | |
February 2007: Lawsuit Filed over Contra Costa Water District’s Plan to Divert Water from a New Delta Intake Location San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority v. Contra Costa Water District 06CS01778 (Sacramento Super. Ct., filed Dec. 15, 2006) | |
February 2007: First District Court Holds that Public Resources Code 21166 Applies to Second Phase of Project that Included ‘Big Box’ Store—But Overturns City’s Decision to Forego Further Environmental Review American Canyon Community United for Responsible Growth v. City of American Canyon, ___Cal.App.4th___ A111278, A112088 (1st Dist. Nov. 17, 2006) | |
November 2006: Fourth District Upholds Environmental Impact Report Permitting Mission Creek Well Project to Continue Sierra Club v. Mission Springs Water District, ___ Cal. App.4th___ E039194 (4th Dist. Sept. 21, 2006) | |
October 2006: Sixth District Finds City’s Failure to Fully Evaluate Reduced Size Alternative Violated CEQA Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose 141 Cal. App.4th 1336 (6th Dist. 2006) | |
March 2006: First District Finds State Agency Must Conduct CEQA Review of Use of Pesticide Products in Winegrap Disease Control Program Californians for Alternatives to Toxic, et al. v. Calif. Department of Food and Agriculture, ___Cal.App.4th___ A107088, published Jan. 27, 2006 (1st Dist. Dec. 29, 2005) | |
March 2006: California Supreme Court Accepts Review of In re Bay-Delta Programmatic EIR Cases In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings, 133 Cal.App.4th 154 (2005), cert. granted, Cal. Supr. Ct., Jan. 25, 2006 | |
January 2006: Fourth District Holds Project Specific EIR Not Required where Master EIR Provides Adequate Environmental Review of Project’s Impacts Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency, et al., ___Cal.App.4th___ D045274 (4th Dist. Nov. 30, 2005) | |
December 2005: Third District Court Holds Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Report Legally Insufficient In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings, ___Cal.App.4th___ 4152, (3rd Dist. Oct. 7, 2005) | |
November 2005: Urban Decay—The Uncertain Intersection of CEQA and Economic Analysis | |
November 2005: District Court in California Rules Revised Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Satisfies the Endangered Species Act National Wildlife Federation, et al., v. Norton, ___F.Supp.2d___ Civ. No. S. 04-570-DFL-JFM (E.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2005) | |
October 2005: Second District Finds Los Angeles Cannot Ignore Mitigation Measures Adopted as Part of Redevelopment Project Lincoln Place Tenants Association v. City of Los Angeles 130 Cal.App.4th 1491 (2nd Dist. 2005) | |
October 2005: Sixth District Rules More CEQA Study Needed of Impacts of Off-Leash Dogs on State Beach Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz 131 Cal.App.4th 1170 (6th Dist. 2005) | |
October 2005: Fourth District Finds EIR Fatally Flawed and Project Inconsistent with Orange County’s General Plan Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange, ___Cal.App.4th___ G034416 (4th Dist. June 29, 2005) | |
August 2005: Third District Court Upholds EIR for Proposed Wal-Mart on All Grounds Except Traffic Mitigation Fees Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson, FHK Companies, Inc., ___Cal.App.4th___ CO47605 (3rd Dist. June 30, 2005) | |
August 2005: Fifth District Court Orders Merced County to Pay Petitioner’s Attorney’s Fees in CEQA Case Protect Our Water et al. v. County of Merced, ___Cal. App.4th___ F044896, unpub. opinion (5th Dist. May 25, 2005) | |
January 2005: Court-Issued Writ Commanding Agency to Account for “All” Sources of Pollution Is Limited to Sources Identified in EIR Riverwatch v. County of San Diego D042430 (4th Dist. Oct. 25, 2004) | |
December 2004: Fourth District Court Upholds EIR For Conversion of Mobile Home Park to Public Recreational Facilities El Morro Community Association v. California Department of Parks and Recreation 122 Cal.App.4th 1341 (4th Dist. 2004) | |
November 2004: First District Court Clarifies When Statements of Technical Issues Constitute Substantial Evidence and When Aesthetic Impacts Will Be Considered Significant under CEQA Bowman v. Berkeley 122 Cal.App.4th 772 (1st Dist. 2004) | |
October 2004: Unnecessary Preparation of Environmental Impact Report by Santa Barbara County Did Not Waive CEQA Exemption for Local Coastal Plan Amendment Santa Barbara County Flower and Nursery Growers Association, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara, ___Cal.App.4th___ B170027 (2nd Dist. Aug. 17, 2004) | |
October 2004: Fourth District Finds that an EIR Does Not Need to Identify the End User of a Commercial Project. Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley, ___Cal.App.4th___ E033904 (4th Dist. June 10, 2004) | |
October 2004: First District Affirms Decision Finding Inclusion of Economic Feasibility Analysis in an Environmental Impact Report Unnecessary Sierra Club v. County of Napa (Beringer Wine Estates), ___Cal.App.4th ___ A101941 (1st Dist. Aug. 6, 2004) | |
May 2003: County Did Not Violate CEQA by Analyzing Two Projects in a Single Environmental Impact Report Neighbors of Cavitt Ranch, et al. v. County of Placer ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. C040450 (3rd Dist. March 7, 2003). | |
November 2001: Court of Appeal Rules Oakland Airport's EIR Inadequate for Noise Impacts, Emissions, Health Risks and Endangered Species Berkeley Keep Jets over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Commissioners 91 Cal.App.4th 1344 (1st Dist. 2001) |
|
|
Environmental Review |
|
|
|
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area |
|
|
|
Fair Reuse Value Transfers |
|
|
|
Federal Common Law |
|
|
|
Federal Roadless Rule |
|
|
|
Fees to Appeal Land Use Decisions |
|
|
|
Firearms Regulation |
|
|
|
First Amendment |
|
July 2010: U.S. Supreme Court Quells Injunction against Display of Latin Cross Where Transfer of Land to Private Party Changed Circumstances Underlying Injunction’s Purpose Salazar v. Buono, ___U.S.___, 130 S. Ct. 1803 08-472 (April 28, 2010) | |
March 2009: Fourth District Finds Expedited First Amendment- Related Permit Statute, and Its 21-Day Statute of Limitations Does Not Bar Third Party Litigants Stearn v. County of San Bernardino, et al., ___Cal.App.4th___ E044388 (2nd Dist. Jan. 22, 2009) | |
November 2006: Ninth Circuit Upholds Residential Picketing Ordinance as a Valid Time, Place and Manner Restriction Klein v. San Diego County, ___F.3d.___ 04-55819 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2006) | |
October 2006: Ninth Circuit Declares RLUIPA Constitutional—Holds that Sutter County Violated Rights of Religious Organization by Denying Land Use Approvals Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Yuba City v. County of Sutter, et al, ___F.3d___ 03-17343 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2006) | |
July 2004: Ninth Circuit Upholds Spokane Ordinances Prohibiting Adult Stores from Opening Near Specified Land Use Categories. World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane,___F.3d___ 02-35936 (9th Cir. May 27, 2004). | |
May 2004: Ninth Circuit Finds City’s Decision to Deny Christian College’s Request for Zoning Change Did Not Violate the First Amendment San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill ___ F.3d ___, Case No. 02-15693 (9th Cir. March 8, 2004). | |
March 2004: California Court of Appeal Finds Portions of Garden Grove’s CyberCafe Ordinance Violate Free Speech First Amendment Rights Vo v. City of Garden Grove ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. G032058 (4th Dist. Jan. 29, 2004). | |
March 2002: United States Supreme Court Upholds Chicago's Content-Neutral Municipal Park Use Permit Ordinance Thomas v. Chicago Park District | |
November 2001: Ninth Circuit Finds San Diego's Sale of Property, Containing a 43-foot High Cross, Did Not Violate the No Preference Clause of the California Constitution. Paulson v. City of San Diego, 262 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2001). |
|
|
Flood Control |
|
|
|
Foreclosure |
|
|
|
Forest Land |
|
May 2010: Ninth Circuit Clarifies ‘Arbitrary and Capricious’ Standard for Management of Forest System Lands under the Forest Management Act and NEPA Native Ecosystems Council v. Tidwell, ___F.3d___ 06-35890 (9th Cir. March 9, 2010) | |
March 2010: Ninth Circuit Denies Claims that U.S. Forest Service Unlawfully Permitted Motorized Use of a Trail in Hells Canyon Wilderness Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, ___F.3d___ 07-35456 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010) | |
March 2010: First District Rules Agency Cannot Delete a Previously Adopted Mitigation Measure Attached to an Expired Approval without Reviewing the Continuing Need for the Mitigation Katzeff v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, ___Cal.App.4th___ A122642 (1st Dist. Jan. 28, 2010) | |
February 2010: New U.S. Forest Service Planning Rule Broadens Analysis of Water Quality and Watershed Health—With an Eye towards Climate Change | |
November 2009: Climate Action Reserve’s ‘Forest Project Protocol 3.0’ Adopted by the California Air Resources Board | |
October 2009: Ninth Circuit Holds No Implied Private Right of Action under Bivens when the APA Provides an Adequate Remedy Western Radio Services Co. v. U.S. Forest Service, ___F.3d___ 08-35186 (9th Cir. Aug. 21, 2009) | |
August 2009: House Approves Spending Increase for Environmental and Conservation Programs | |
April 2008: aaa aaa aaa | |
March 2008: First District Court Holds Litigation Privilege Protects Communications Made by Project Proponent during CEQA Environmental Review Process People ex rel Gallegos v. Pacific Lumber Company et al., 158 Cal.App.4th 950 (1st Dist. 2008) | |
June 2006: Tenth Circuit Holds that Trout Unlimited’s Remand Order Is Not a Final Appealable Judgment Trout Unlimited v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, ___F.3d___ 04-1317, 04-1346 (10th Cir. March 28, 2006) | |
June 2006: Fifth District Faults California Department of Forestry for Failing to Ensure that Biological Assessment Areas Evaluated for Timber Harvest Plans Are Tailored to Individual Species Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. California Department of Forestry 138 Cal.App.4th 779 (5th Dist. 2006) | |
May 2006: Ninth Circuit Grants Preliminary Injunction to Prevent Forest Service Timber Sales in the El Dorado National Forest Earth Island Institute v. U.S. Forest Service, ___F.3d___ 05-16776 (9th Cir. March 24, 2006) |
|
|
Forest Project Protocol for Carbon Sequestration |
|
|
|
Formula Business Ordinances |
|
|
|
Free Speech |
|
|
|
General Plans |
|
August 2010: Legislative update | |
July 2010: Legislative update | |
May 2010: First District Upholds Trial Court Ruling that City’s Approval of General Plan Update Violated State Aeronautics Act and CEQA Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville, ___Cal. App.4th___ A122205 (1st Dist. April 12, 2010) | |
April 2010: Legislative Update | |
April 2010: Alameda County Superior Court Decision Could Have Wide-Ranging Impact on Local Governments’ Obligations to Provide Fair-Share of Housing Units Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton RG06-293831, March 12, 2010 (Alameda Super. Ct.) | |
March 2010: San Joaquin County Superior Court Upholds EIR for City of Stockton’s 2035 General Plan Morada Area Association v. City of Stockton CV034370 (San Joaquin Super. Ct. Jan. 4, 2010) | |
February 2010: Fourth District Requires an EIR on a General Plan Amendment, Declines to Overturn Approvals of Tentative Parcel Maps Inyo Citizens For Better Planning v. Inyo County Board of Supervisors, ___Cal.App.4th___ E046646, (4th Dist. Dec. 12, 2009) | |
October 2009: Second District Reaffirms Voter Adoption of Initiative Amending County’s General Plan to Permit Mixed Use Development Near an Airport Citizens for Planning Responsibly v. County of San Luis Obispo, ___Cal.App.4th___ B206957 (2nd Dist. Aug. 4, 2009) | |
May 2009: Third District Rules City Violated General Plan Policy Requiring ‘Coordination’ with Agencies Regarding Mitigating Impacts to Wetlands and Species California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova, ___Cal.App.4th___ C057018 (3rd Dist. Mar. 24, 2009) | |
May 2009: Maine Supreme Court Removes Hurdle for Construction of Poland Spring Loadout Facility | |
April 2009: Third District Rules Local Agency May Not Rely Solely on Fee Program Not Evaluated under CEQA to Issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration and to Approve Project California Native Plant Society v. County of El Dorado 170 Cal.App.4th 1026 (3rd Dist. 2009) | |
February 2009: A Room First, the View Can Come Later: Local Autonomy and the Density Bonus Law | |
February 2009: Sixth District Rejects City’s Argument that Statute of Limitations for Challenge to Extension of Land Use Restriction Runs from Original Enactment Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill, ___ Cal.App.4th___ H032201 (6th Dist. Dec. 16, 2008) | |
January 2009: Yolo County Farm Bureau Files Suit Challenging Yolo County’s Approval of Siting Agreement for Prison Inmate Reentry Facility Yolo County Farm Bureau v. County of Yolo CV08-2752, filed Nov. 5, 2008 (Yolo Cnty. Super. Ct.) | |
November 2008: Legislative update | |
November 2008: Sierra Club and California AG Settle Dispute with City of Stockton over Its 2035 General Plan—Climate Change Must Be Addressed Sierra Club v. City of Stockton CV 034405, Memorandum of Agreement, Sept. 10, 2008 (San Joaquin County Superior Court) | |
July 2008: Land use legislation | |
May 2008: Legislative update | |
December 2007: 2007 Land use legislation wrap up | |
November 2007: Legislative update | |
October 2007: Land use legislation | |
October 2007: First District Finds City Did Not Abuse Discretion by Finding Project Consistent with Applicable Plans or by Awarding Density Bonus Beyond that Required by Law Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville, ___Cal.App.4th___ A113236 (1st Dist. Aug. 28, 2007) | |
July 2007: Land use legislation | |
July 2007: Local Governments’ Regulatory Authority Boosted by California Supreme Court Decision Affirming Right to Regulate to Protect Economic Development | |
June 2007: California Files CEQA Suit against San Bernardino County for Failing to Evaluate Global Warming Impacts State of California v. County of San Bernardino 0700329, filed April 12, 2007, (San Bernardino County Superior Court) | |
June 2007: Land use legislation | |
May 2007: Sixth District Upholds General Plan’s Housing Element Despite Findings by Department of Housing that Plan Did Not Comply with Housing Element Law Fonseca v. City of Gilroy, ___Cal.App.4th___ H028369 (6th Dist. Mar. 23, 2007) | |
March 2007: Assemblywoman Wolk Proposes State Planning and Zoning Law Amendments to Address Global Warming-Related Flooding Concerns | |
December 2006: 2006 Year-End Legislative Summary | |
April 2006: Recent land use legislation | |
April 2006: First District Upholds Settlement of CEQA Challenge to Rohnert Park’s General Plan 108 Holdings, Ltd., et al. v. City of Rohnert Park, ___Cal.App.4th___ A108629 (1st Dist. Jan. 31, 2006) | |
December 2005: First District Rules Inverse Condemnation Action Unripe, Rejects Application of Futility Exception to Ripeness Doctrine County of Alameda v. Superior Court (San Leandro Rock Company, Inc.), ___ Cal.App.4th___ A109576 (1st Dist. Oct. 18, 2005) | |
November 2005: Land use legislation | |
October 2005: Fourth District Finds EIR Fatally Flawed and Project Inconsistent with Orange County’s General Plan Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange, ___Cal.App.4th___ G034416 (4th Dist. June 29, 2005) | |
October 2005: Legislative update | |
September 2005: Texas: Water Supply and the Land Use Connection | |
September 2005: Idaho: Water Supply and the Land Use Connection | |
September 2005: California: Water Supply and the Land Use Connection | |
September 2005: Nevada: Water Supply and the Land Use Connection | |
August 2005: First District Court Finds City’s Agreement with Tribe Regarding Impacts of Proposed Casino Project Not Subject to Referendum Worthington v. City Council of the City of Rohnert Park, ___Cal.App.4th___ A107547 (1st Dist. June 30, 2005) | |
July 2005: Attorney General Opines that Cities May Decrease the Number of Future Low Income Housing Units if Funds Are Insufficient Ops.Cal.Atty. Gen. 03-104 (May 18, 2005) | |
July 2005: Legislative update | |
June 2005: Legislative Update | |
May 2005: Legislative Update | |
April 2005: Second District Court Rejects Second Challenge to Los Angeles’ Approval of a General Plan Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles, ___Cal.App.4th ___ B166819 (2nd Dist. Feb. 17, 2005) | |
April 2005: Legislative Update | |
March 2005: First District Court Overturns County Project Approval Based on Improper Reliance on Mitigation Measures to Grant a Categorical Exemption under CEQA Salmon Protection and Watershed Network v. County of Marin, ___Cal.App.4th___ A105592 (1st Dist. Dec. 16, 2004; pub. ordered Jan. 18, 2005) | |
February 2005: Second District Court Overturns Planning Commission Decision because of the Unacceptable Probability of Actual Bias. Nasha, L.L.C., v. City of Los Angeles, ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. BC258585 (2nd Dist. Dec. 29, 2004). | |
January 2005: First District Court Finds Alameda Initiative to Amend County General Plan Inapplicable to Previously Issued Surface Mining Permit Save Our Sunol, Inc. v. Mission Valley Rock Company, ___Cal.App.4th___ A105160 (1st Dist. Nov. 19, 2004) | |
December 2004: Legislative update | |
October 2004: Legislative update | |
October 2004: City’s Adoption of a Qualified Voter-Sponsored Initiative Found to Be a Ministerial Act Not Subject to CEQA Native American Sacred Site and Environmental Protection Association v. City of San Juan Capistrano 120 Cal.App.4th 961 (4th Dist. 2004) | |
August 2004: Fourth District Upholds Irvine’s Certification of Program EIR for General Plan Amendment andZone Change Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Association v. Terifa 33 Cal.4th 73 (Cal. 2004) | |
August 2004: Napa Valley Wine Train Is Not a Common Carrier and Therefore Not Subject To Regulation as a Public Utility City of St. Helena v. Public Utilities Commission ___ Cal.App.4th ___(1st Dist. June 21, 2004) | |
April 2004: A Case Study in Approving a General Plan by Initiative: A Closer Look at El Dorado County’s 2004 Ballot Measure G | |
February 2004: Expansion of Water Recycling Program Did Not Require a Supplemental EIR under CEQA Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. H024841 (6th Dist. Dec. 18, 2003). | |
January 2004: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Announces Publication of Its 2003 Edition of General Plan Guidelines | |
December 2003: Newhall Ranch: A Study in Patience and Compromise in an Open and Exhaustive Planning and Environmental Review Process | |
October 2003: Court of Appeal Upholds Decision Excluding Evidence of Economic Harm as Irrelevant to Plaintiff’s Facial Takings Challenge of a City Regulation Limiting Development NJD, Ltd. v. City of San Dimas 110 Cal.App.4th 1428, (2nd Dist. 2003). | |
April 2003: Assembly Bill 2292: Losing Local Control over Growth | |
December 2002: First District Reaffirms Deferential Standard of Review for General Plan Consistency, CEQA Compliance and Blight Determinations San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan et al. v. City and County of San Francisco 102 Cal.App.4th 656 (1st Dist. Sept. 30, 2002). | |
December 2001: Planning Agencies' Newest Hobglobin: The Napa Citizens Case Shifts General Plan Vertical Consistency Analysis From "Clear Conflict" To Adequate "Implementation" | |
November 2001: Court of Appeal Finds Placer County's Decision to Prohibit Residential Development within One Mile of County Landfill Was Supported by Substantial Evidence. Placer Ranch Partners v. County of Placer 91 Cal.App.4th 1336 (3rd Dist. 2001). | |
October 2001: Napa County's Airport Industrial Area Specific Plan Is Inconsistent with the County's General Plan - Court Strikes Related EIR Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors, 91 Cal.App.4th 342 (1st Dist. |
|
|
General Use Permits |
|
|
|
Global Warming |
|
November 2007: California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s Crusade against Global Climate Change | |
October 2007: Combating Global Warming through the California Environmental Quality Act | |
October 2007: Settlement in People v. San Bernardino Offers Fresh Blueprint to Assess and Mitigate Climate Change Impacts under CEQA People v. County of San Bernardino CIVSS 700329, settlement agreement, August 21, 2007, San Bernardino County Superior Court | |
June 2007: Superior Court Allows River Islands Development to Continue without Consideration of the Flood Effects of Global Climate Change NRDC, et al. v. Reclamation Board et al. 06CS01228 (Sacramento County Superior Court) | |
June 2007: California Files CEQA Suit against San Bernardino County for Failing to Evaluate Global Warming Impacts State of California v. County of San Bernardino 0700329, filed April 12, 2007, (San Bernardino County Superior Court) | |
June 2007: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change: CEQA Catches Up with Science, Celebrities, and Product Placement |
|
|
Good Faith Improvers |
|
|
|
Government Surveys |
|
|
|
Grading Ordinance |
|
|
|
Grazing Rights |
|
|
|
'Green' Building Standards and Codes |
|
|
|
Green' Building Standards and Codes |
|
|
|
Groundwater Management Plans |
|
|
|
Habitat Conservation Plans |
|
|
|
Hawaiian Sovereignty |
|
|
|
Hillside Municipal Ordinances |
|
|
|
Historic and Prehistoric Property |
|
|
|
Historic Buildings |
|
July 2009: First District Protects Vacant Church from Designation as a Landmark Pursuant to the San Francisco Municipal Planning Code California-Nevada Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church v. City and County of San Francisco, ___Cal.App.4th___ A122578 (1st Dist. May 20, 2009) | |
April 2007: Second District Finds that CEQA Review Is a Prerequisite to Approval of Agreement for Conveyance and Development of Historic Property Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, ___Cal.App.4th ___ B185656 (2nd Dist. Feb. 21, 2007) | |
April 2007: First District Holds High Financial Cost of Alternatives Does Not Automatically Render Them ‘Infeasible’ under CEQA Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside 147 Cal.App.4th 587 (1st Dist. 2007) | |
October 2006: Sixth District Finds City’s Failure to Fully Evaluate Reduced Size Alternative Violated CEQA Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose 141 Cal. App.4th 1336 (6th Dist. 2006) | |
October 2005: Second District Finds Los Angeles Cannot Ignore Mitigation Measures Adopted as Part of Redevelopment Project Lincoln Place Tenants Association v. City of Los Angeles 130 Cal.App.4th 1491 (2nd Dist. 2005) | |
April 2005: Fifth District Court Finds a Jury May Consider Historical Use of Building in Determining Its Fair Market Value Sierra View Local Health Care District v. Sierra View Medical Plaza Associates, LP, ___Cal.App.4th___ F043467 (5th Dist. Jan. 6, 2005, modified Feb. 3, 2005) | |
December 2004: Sixth District Court Finds Substantial Evidence to Support Finding that Monterey County’s “Old Jail” Has Historic Value Requiring an EIR Before Demolition May Occur Architectural Heritage Association, et al. v. County of Monterey 122 Cal.App.4th 1095 (6th Dist. 2004) |
|
|
Historic Landmark Designation |
|
|
|
Historic Public Roads |
|
|
|
Home Owners Associations |
|
|
|
Hotel Property |
|
|
|
Housing |
|
July 2010: Legislative update | |
June 2010: Second District Finds Landlord’s Refusal to Accept ‘Section 8’ Housing Assistance Is Not Discrimination under the State Fair Employment and Housing Act Sabi v. Sterling, ___Cal.App.4th___ B205279 (2nd Cir. April 8, 2010) | |
June 2010: Land Use Legislation | |
June 2010: Second District Finds Agencies May Use Affordable Housing Funds for Any Authorized Purpose Provided a Nexus Exists Between Expenditures and Supply of Affordable Housing City of Cerritos v. Cerritos Taxpayer Association, ___Cal.App.4th___ B214530 (2nd Dist. April 20, 2010) | |
April 2010: Legislative Update | |
April 2010: Proposed Initiatives for the November 2010 Ballot to Enact ‘California Job and Housing Act’ to Amend CEQA Initiatives 10-008 to 10-011 | |
April 2010: Alameda County Superior Court Decision Could Have Wide-Ranging Impact on Local Governments’ Obligations to Provide Fair-Share of Housing Units Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton RG06-293831, March 12, 2010 (Alameda Super. Ct.) | |
March 2010: Second District Upholds Los Angeles’ Redevelopment Design Guidelines for North Hollywood PR/JSM Rivera LLC v. Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, ___Cal.App.4th___ B213051 (2nd Dist. 2009) | |
February 2010: First District Upholds Higher Density Bonus Units than Required by State Law and Finds Grant of Discretionary Units Not Subject to CEQA Wollmer v. City of Berkeley 179 Cal.App.4th 933, (1st Dist. 2009) | |
January 2010: 2009 Year-End Review of Select Land Use Legislation | |
December 2009: Ninth Circuit Finds Low Income Housing Ordinance Is Not Preempted by a U.S. Department of Housing Regulation Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton, LLC, ___F.3d___ 07-56697 (9th Cir. 2009) | |
November 2009: Guggenheim v. City of Goleta—The Ninth Circuit Breaks New Ground for Property Rights and Generates Great Controversy | |
November 2009: Land Use Legislation | |
October 2009: First District Finds County Ordinance Imposing Additional Requirements to Convert Rental Mobilehome Parks to Resident-Owned Was Preempted by Subdivision Map Act Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, ___Cal. App.4th___ A120049 (1st Dist. Aug. 21, 2009) | |
October 2009: Second District Holds Los Angeles’ Inclusionary Housing Requirements Violate Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. et al. v. City of Los Angeles 175 Cal.App.4th 1396 (2nd Dist. 2009) | |
October 2009: Land use legislation | |
August 2009: Legislative update | |
April 2009: Fifth District Rules Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees Must Be ‘Reasonably Related’ to the Impacts Generated by New Development Project Building Industry Association of Central California v. City of Patterson, ___ Cal.App.4th___ F054785 (5th Dist. Mar. 2, 2009) | |
April 2009: Examining the Importance of the California Supreme Court’s Decision in Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood | |
April 2009: Legislative update | |
April 2009: Sixth District Court Validates Affordable Housing Deed Restriction Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Association, Inc., ___Cal.App.4th___ H031127 (6th Dist. Feb. 19, 2009) | |
March 2009: Land use legislation | |
February 2009: A Room First, the View Can Come Later: Local Autonomy and the Density Bonus Law | |
February 2009: Sixth District Rejects City’s Argument that Statute of Limitations for Challenge to Extension of Land Use Restriction Runs from Original Enactment Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill, ___ Cal.App.4th___ H032201 (6th Dist. Dec. 16, 2008) | |
January 2009: California Supreme Court Finds Agreement Conditioned on Developer’s Future Compliance with CEQA May Be Deemed a ‘Project Approval’ Requiring CEQA Review Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood 45 Cal.4th 16 (Cal. 2008) | |
December 2008: 2008 Year-end review of select land use legislation | |
November 2008: Legislative update | |
November 2008: Second District Finds Nexus/Rough Proportionality Takings Test Did Not Apply to Facial Challenge of Ordinance Requiring Affordable Multifamily Housing Action Apartment Association v. City of Santa Monica, ___Cal.App.4th___ B201176 (2nd Dist. Aug. 28, 2008) | |
October 2008: Land use legislation | |
October 2008: First District Court Finds Challenge to City’s Housing Element Barred by Statute of Limitations Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton, ___Cal.App.4th___ A118327 (1st Dist. July 22, 2008) | |
August 2008: Land use legislation | |
July 2008: Land use legislation | |
June 2008: Land use legislation | |
May 2008: Fourth District Court Holds Substantial Evidence Supported Fair Argument that Senior Housing Project May Have Significant Environmental Impact Citizens For Responsible Government v. City of Grand Terrace, ___Cal.App.4th___ E041493/E042092 (4th Dist. Feb. 21, 2008) | |
May 2008: Legislative update | |
April 2008: aaa aaa aaa | |
December 2007: 2007 Land use legislation wrap up | |
November 2007: Legislative update | |
October 2007: Land use legislation | |
August 2007: Land use legislation | |
July 2007: Land use legislation | |
June 2007: Land use legislation | |
May 2007: Legislative update | |
May 2007: Sixth District Upholds General Plan’s Housing Element Despite Findings by Department of Housing that Plan Did Not Comply with Housing Element Law Fonseca v. City of Gilroy, ___Cal.App.4th___ H028369 (6th Dist. Mar. 23, 2007) | |
April 2007: Legislative update | |
December 2006: 2006 Year-End Legislative Summary | |
November 2006: Legislative update | |
October 2006: Legislative update | |
August 2006: Legislative update | |
May 2006: Legislative update | |
April 2006: Recent land use legislation | |
February 2006: Fourth District Court Affirms Rule that Petitioners Bear Cost of Preparing Record in Writ of Mandate Proceeding Black Historical Society v. City of San Diego, et al 134 Cal.App.4th 1376 (4th Dist. 2005) | |
January 2006: First District Revisits Prevailing Wage Law in Connection with Redevelopment Agency’s Reimbursement of Land Acquisition Costs to Developer Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Chuck Cake, Unpub. Op. A107763 and A107769 (1st Dist. Nov. 22, 2005) | |
December 2005: 2005 Land use Legislation Wrap Up | |
November 2005: Land use legislation | |
October 2005: Legislative update | |
August 2005: Legislative update | |
July 2005: Attorney General Opines that Cities May Decrease the Number of Future Low Income Housing Units if Funds Are Insufficient Ops.Cal.Atty. Gen. 03-104 (May 18, 2005) | |
July 2005: Legislative update | |
June 2005: Legislative Update | |
May 2005: Fourth District Court Finds Prepayment of City Affordable Housing Loan Does Not Extinguish Equity Share or Require Reconveyance of Deed of Trust Dieckmeyer v. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach 127 Cal.App.4th 248 (4th Dist. 2005) | |
May 2005: California Coastal Commission Loses Key Ruling in Affordable Housing Enforcement Action Blanton v. State of California, et al. 03CC00268, Orange County Superior Court (April 12, 2005) | |
April 2005: Legislative Update | |
December 2004: Legislative update | |
November 2004: First District Court Clarifies When Statements of Technical Issues Constitute Substantial Evidence and When Aesthetic Impacts Will Be Considered Significant under CEQA Bowman v. Berkeley 122 Cal.App.4th 772 (1st Dist. 2004) | |
October 2004: Legislative update | |
October 2004: California Supreme Court Rules on Statutory Deadlines for Filing Actions Challenging Local Zoning and Planning Decisions Based on Preemption Travis v. County of Santa Cruz, ___Cal.4th___ S109597 (Cal. July 29, 2004) | |
August 2004: Fourth District Upholds Irvine’s Certification of Program EIR for General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine, ___Cal.App.4th___ G032062 (4th Dist. June 29, 2004) | |
August 2004: Napa Valley Wine Train Is Not a Common Carrier and Therefore Not Subject To Regulation as a Public Utility City of St. Helena v. Public Utilities Commission ___ Cal.App.4th ___(1st Dist. June 21, 2004) | |
July 2004: City Not Entitled to Impose Additional Conditions on Prepayment of Loan Made under City’s Affordable Housing Program. Dieckmeyer v. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, ___Cal.App.4th___ G031869 (4th Dist. May 21, 2004). | |
June 2004: Legislative Update | |
April 2004: Disabled Person Seeking to Enforce Rights under the Fair Housing Amendments Act Need Not Have an Interest in Purchasing or Renting Property for Standing to Sue Smith v. Pacific Properties and Development Corporation ___ F.3d___, Case No. 03-15656 (9th Cir. Jan. 26, 2004). | |
February 2004: SB 619: Killing Smart Growth To Meet Low and Moderate Income Housing Needs | |
November 2003: Second District Court finds Actual Construction of Units within Coastal Zone Is Necessary to Trigger Mello Act’s Affordable Housing Requirement Coalition of Concerned Communities v. City of Los Angeles (Catellus Residential Group) ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. B149092 (2nd Dist. Sept. 8, 2003). | |
May 2003: Attorney General Opines Cities May Regulate Boarding House Uses in Low Density Residential Districts to Preserve the Residential Character of Neighborhoods. 01 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 402 (March 19, 2003). | |
October 2001: Court of Appeal Upholds City of Napa's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Home Builders Association of Northern California v. City of Napa 90 Cal.App.4th 188 (1st Dist. July 2, 2001). |
|
|
Indian Casinos |
|
April 2010: First District Holds City’s Agreement to Provide Municipal Services to Proposed Tribal Casino Not a Project under CEQA Parchester Village Neighborhood Council v. City of Richmond, ___Cal.App.4th___ A123859 (1st Dist. Feb. 24, 2010) | |
July 2007: Fourth District Upholds Redevelopment Agency’s Execution of Municipal Services Agreement with Tribe —Agreement Did Not Render ‘Assistance’ in Casino Development Hesperia Citizens for Responsible Development v. City of Hesperia et al., ___Cal.App.4th___ D049614 (4th Dist. May 30, 2007) | |
January 2007: AG Opines that in Limited Circumstances, Class III Gaming May Occur on Individual ‘Allotment Land’ or ‘Trust Land’ Held by Individual Indians outside the Boundaries of a Reservation Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen 06-702. (Nov. 15, 2006) | |
March 2006: D.C. Circuit Finds Environmental Analysis under NEPA for Proposed Tribal Casino Sufficient TOMAC, Taxpayers of Michigan Against Casinos v. Norton 433 F.3d 852 (D.C. Cir. 2006) | |
January 2006: Third District Rules Air Quality and Alternatives Analysis In EIR/EA for Proposed Hotel, Casino and Highway Interchange Project Inadequate County of El Dorado v. California Department of Transportation, et al. 133 Cal.App.4th 1376 (3rd Dist. 2005) | |
October 2005: First District Finds a Memorandum of Understanding between a City and an Indian Tribe Was Not a Project Requiring CEQA Review Citizens To Enforce CEQA v. City of Rohnert Park, ___Cal.App.4th___ A106592 (1st Dist. July 25, 2005) | |
August 2005: First District Court Finds City’s Agreement with Tribe Regarding Impacts of Proposed Casino Project Not Subject to Referendum Worthington v. City Council of the City of Rohnert Park, ___Cal.App.4th___ A107547 (1st Dist. June 30, 2005) |
|
|
In-Fill Development |
|
|
|
Ingress and Egress |
|
|
|
Internet Ordinance |
|
|
|
Interstate Compacts |
|
|
|
Inverse Condemnation |
|
July 2010: First District Finds a Plaintiff Must Be Able to Prove Damages to Maintain a Cause of Action for Inverse Condemnation Ridgewater Associates, LLC v. Dublin San Ramon Services District 184 Cal.App.4th 629 (1st Dist. 2010) | |
June 2009: Third District Holds County’s Flood Control Activities Met Reasonableness Standard—Did Not Give Rise to Inverse Condemnation Liability Hauselt v. County of Butte, ___Cal.App.4th___ C054927 (3rd Dist. Mar. 23, 2009) | |
May 2009: Third District Holds County’s Flood Control Activities Met Reasonableness Standard—Did Not Give Rise to Inverse Condemnation Liability Hauselt v. County of Butte, ___Cal.App.4th___ C054927 (3rd Dist. Mar. 23, 2009) | |
January 2008: Second District Court Finds Request for Relocation Assistance Benefits from Redevelopment Agency Untimely Bi-Rite Meat & Provisions Co. v. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Hawaiian Gardens ___Cal.App.4th___ (2nd Dist. Oct. 24, 2007) | |
November 2006: Fourth District Overturns Inverse Condemnation Award Finding Landowner Failed to Demonstrate a Direct and Special Injury from Local Land Use Planning Activities Border Business Park, Inc. v. City of San Diego, ___Cal. App.4th___ E035881 (4th Dist. Sept. 19, 2006) | |
October 2006: First District Court Holds that ‘Garden Variety’ Inadequate Maintenance Cannot Support a Claim for Inverse Condemnation against a Flood Control Agency Tilton v. Reclamation District No. 800, ___Cal. App.4th___ A112185 (1st Dist. Aug. 15, 2006) | |
October 2006: Finding Trial Court Misinterpreted Scope of Easement, Fourth District Reverses Inverse Condemnation and Direct Taking Awards Against Fallbrook Public Utility District Red Mountain, LLC v. Fallbrook Public Utility District, ___Cal.App.4th___ D044546 (4th Dist. Aug. 18, 2006) | |
June 2006: Sixth District Holds City of Palo Alto Liable under Inverse Condemnation When Its Sewer Pipe Caused Sewage Backup in Residence California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau v. City of Palo Alto, ___Cal.App.4th___ H027980 (6th Dist. April 10, 2006) | |
May 2006: Court of Appeal Rules that Imperial County Did Not ‘Take’ a Landowner’s Overlying Water Rights when Conditioning a Use Permit to Limit Pumping Allegretti v. County of Imperial D045156, unpub. op. (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Mar. 28, 2006 ) | |
April 2006: Second District Finds City Violated Mortgagee’s Due Process Rights by Demolishing Substandard Building without Proper Notice D & M Financial Corp. v. City of Long Beach, ___Cal.App.4th___ B173977 (2nd Dist. Jan. 30, 2006) | |
May 2005: Fourth District Court of Appeal Finds Action for Partial Condemnation for Loss of Use of Land May Co-Exist with Claim for Severance Damages San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board v. RV Communities, ___Cal.App.4th___ D042545 (4th Dist. March 29, 2005) | |
April 2005: Second District Court Finds City of Long Beach Not Liable for Inverse Condemnation Related to Sewer Breach Malkhoo v. City of Long Beach B173806, unpublished opinion, 2nd Dist. Feb. 2, 2005) | |
April 2005: Second District Court Denies Compensation for Loss of Visibility Claim in Inverse Condemnation Action Regency Outdoor Advertising v. City of Los Angeles, ___Cal.App.4th___ B159255 (2nd Dist. Feb. 17, 2005) | |
January 2005: Second District Court Reverses Judgment to Dismiss Los Angeles County Lawsuit for Inverse Condemnation Uniwill v. City of Los Angeles, ___Cal.App.4th ___ B168030 (2nd Dist. Nov. 30, 2004) | |
April 2004: Will New Flood Case Mean a Flood of Damages Paid to a Flood of Plaintiffs? Supreme Court Denies Review of Paterno Decision | |
January 2004: California Court of Appeal Rules that State of California Is Liable for Flood Control Damage Due to Faulty Levee Construction Paterno v. State of California ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. C040553 (3rd Dist. Nov. 26, 2003). | |
July 2003: Court of Appeal Confirms that in Action for Inverse Condemnation, Recovery of Mitigation Expenses Is Not Dependant upon a Showing that, "but for" the Mitigation Efforts, Damages Would Have Been Sustained CUNA Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. B149100 (2nd Dist. April 30, 2003). | |
June 2003: Planning and Litigation in Glendale: The Story and the Morals of Gregg v. City of Glendale | |
August 2002: State and County Governments Held Liable in Inverse Condemnation for Negligent Maintenance of the Pajaro River Levee and Negligent Construction of Highway 1 Arreola v. Monterey County, ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. H02133 (6th Dist. June 25, 2002). 2002). | |
December 2001: Second District Court of Appeal Finds Landslide Caused by El Nino Rains and Water Main Breaks Did Not Give Rise to Inverse Condemnation Claims Goebel v. City of Santa Barbara 92 Cal.App.4th 549 (2nd Dist. 2001). | |
October 2001: United States Supreme Court: Landowners May Bring Inverse Condemnation Actions for Regulatory Takings when They Acquire Property after Imposition of Regulations Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, ___ U.S. ___, 121 S.Ct. 2448 (June 28, 2001) |
|
|
Joint Powers Authority |
|
|
|
Judicial Takings |
|
|
|
Lakes |
|
|
|
Land Appraisals |
|
|
|
Land Boundaries |
|
|
|
Land Dedications |
|
|
|
Land Patents |
|
|
|
Land Preserves |
|
|
|
Land Trusts |
|
|
|
Landfills |
|
June 2010: Second District Holds Landfill Operator’s Complaint Based on Land Use Guidelines Is Not Subject to ‘Anti-SLAPP’ Motion to Strike Complaint USA Waste of California, Inc. v. City of Irwindale, ___Cal.App.4th___ B212719 (2nd Dist. April 27, 2010) | |
March 2009: Fourth District Finds Water District’s Contractual Agreement for Water to Landfill Was Part of the Overall Project and Approval Subject to CEQA Riverwatch v. Olivenhain Municipal Water District, ___Cal.App.4th___ D052237 (4th Dist. Jan. 9, 2009, modified Jan. 30, 2009) | |
March 2006: Eight Circuit Finds Arkansas’ Solid Waste Regulations Do Not Violate the Commerce Clause, and Represent a Valid Use of the State’s Police Powers IESI AR Corporation v. Northwest Arkansas Regional Solid Waste Management District, et al., ___F.3d___ 05-1299 (8th Cir. Jan. 5, 2006) | |
March 2006: Sixth Circuit Strikes Down Kentucky Waste Disposal Ordinance in Violation of Dormant Commerce Clause National Solid Wastes Management Association v. Daviess County, Kentucky, ___F.3d___ 04-6498 (6th Cir. Jan. 24, 2006) | |
March 2006: Virginia General Assembly to Address Garbage Barge Compromise on James River |
January 2006: California District Court Dismisses Developer’s Claims Challenging State Agency Cleanup of Landfill Gas at Former Air Force Base Shea Homes Limited Partnership v. United States, ___F.Supp.2d___ C04 – 0092 TEH (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2005) | |
December 2005: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Upholds Harms/Benefits Test Requirement for Landfill Permitting Eagle Environmental II LP v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, ___ A.2d ___ J89 A and B (Penn. Oct. 27, 2005) | |
January 2005: Fourth District Court Finds County Landfill Monitoring Wells Are Not an “Improvement” Giving Rise to Cause of Action for Negligent Development of Land Gaggero v. County of San Diego, ___Cal.App.4th___ D043012 (4th Dist. Dec. 1, 2004) | |
November 2001: Court of Appeal Finds Placer County's Decision to Prohibit Residential Development within One Mile of County Landfill Was Supported by Substantial Evidence. Placer Ranch Partners v. County of Placer 91 Cal.App.4th 1336 (3rd Dist. 2001). |
|
|
Landlocked Parcels |
|
|
|
Legislation |
|
|
|
Litigation Privilege |
|
|
|
Littoral Rights |
August 2010: U.S. Supreme Court Holds Beachfront Property Owners Are Not Entitled to Restored Beaches, Leaving Question of ‘Judicial Takings’ Unresolved Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, ___U.S.___ 08–1151 (June 17, 2010) | |
August 2010: U.S. Supreme Court Treads into the Realm of ‘Judicial Takings’—Holds Beachfront Property Owners Are Not Entitled to Restored Beaches, Leaving the Primary Issue Unresolved Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, ___U.S.___ 130 S.Ct. 2592 (June 17, 2010) | |
June 2010: Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Prescriptive Easement for Abutting Land Owner to Non-Navigable Water Frech v. Piontkowski 18400 (Conn. May 4, 2010) | |
January 2010: New Hampshire Supreme Court Finds Owner of Subdivision Has No Right to Access Nearby Lake Burke v. Pierro 2008-750 (New Hampshire Dec. 16, 2009) | |
December 2009: N.Y. Supreme Court Requires Riparian Right Owners to Share Equally with One Another Errico v. Weinstein 18048/04 (N.Y. Supreme Court Appellate Div. Oct. 2, 2009) | |
December 2009: News from the West |
November 2009: Ninth Circuit Finds Waterfront Homeowners Liable in Violation of the Rivers and Harbors Act and CWA for Maintaining Structures to Protect against Erosion U.S. v. Nicholson, ___ F.3d ___ 05-35802 (9th Cir. Oct. 2, 2009) | |
October 2009: Landowner Denied Right to Build Dock into Bar Harbor Cove Based upon Aesthetics Anthony Uliano v. Board of Environmental Protection Han-08-643 (Maine Aug. 13, 2009) | |
October 2009: New Hampshire Supreme Court Finds Non-Waterfront Land Owner Has Right to Access Lake Mansur v. Muskopf v. Swallow Point Association 2008 – 776 (New Hampshire Aug. 5, 2009) | |
August 2009: News from the West | |
June 2009: Landowner with Easement Right of ‘Bathing and Boating’ Cannot Build Bridge to Adjacent Parcel She Does Not Own to Enjoy Easement Town of Nantucket v. Lerner 367681 (Mass. Land Ct. March 31, 2009) | |
March 2009: Connecticut State Appellate Court Holds Littoral Property Rights Were Lost Due to 21-Year Delay Caminis, v. Troy 112 Conn.App. 546 (Conn.App. Feb. 10, 2009) | |
July 2007: Connecticut Supreme Court Denies Landowner Right to Install Dock Pursuant to Water Easement Stefanoni v. Duncan 107585 (Conn. June 17, 19, 2007) | |
January 2006: Michigan Supreme Court Protects the Public’s Right to Walk Great Lakes Shorelands and Beaches Glass v. Goeckel, 473 Mich. 667, 703 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. 2005) |
|
|
Livestock |
|
|
|
Local Agency Formation Commissions |
|
|
|
Local Agency Formation Commissions, LAFCOs |
|
|
|
Local Coastal Program |
|
August 2009: Second District Holds California Coastal Commission Properly Considered Coastal View in Deciding Permit Application Farr v. California Coastal Commission, 173 Cal. App.4th 1474 (2nd Dist. 2009). | |
February 2009: Coastal Commission to Hear Appeal of Malibu’s Approval of Beachfront Development Alberstone v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___ B202008 (2nd Dist. Dec. 29, 2008) | |
March 2008: First District Rules Coastal Commission Lacks Authority to Declare Property Environmentally Sensitive Habitat on Appeal from Grant ofCoastal Development Permit Security National Guaranty, Inc. v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___ A114647 (1st Dist. Jan. 25, 2008) | |
October 2006: Second District Concludes Boaters’ Right to View Coastline Not a Proper Consideration in Coastal Commission’s Regulation of Coastal Development Schneider v. California Coastal Commission 140 Cal.App.4th 1339 (2nd Dist. 2006) | |
March 2006: Second District Holds Regulatory Taking Claim Is Ripe when County Denies Application to Subdivide Parcel into Two Residential Lots Dunn v. County of Santa Barbara, ___Cal.App.4th___ B175149 (2nd Dist. Jan. 25, 2006) | |
March 2005: Citizens’ Petition to Compel City to Process Coastal Development Permit Is Not a SLAPP Suit despite Pending Appeal of State-Adopted Local Coastal Plan Visher v. City of Malibu, ___Cal.App.4th___ B173471 (2nd Dist. Feb. 1, 2005) | |
October 2004: Unnecessary Preparation of Environmental Impact Report by Santa Barbara County Did Not Waive CEQA Exemption for Local Coastal Plan Amendment Santa Barbara County Flower and Nursery Growers Association, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara, ___Cal.App.4th___ B170027 (2nd Dist. Aug. 17, 2004) | |
October 2004: Second District Rejects Malibu’s Appeals to Escape from Coastal Commission’s Local Coastal Program Prepared Specifically for the City City of Malibu v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th ___ SS 011355 (2nd Dist. Aug. 23, 2004) |
|
|
Local Government |
|
|
|
Lot Line Adjustments |
|
|
|
Lumber Mills |
|
|
|
Marketable Title |
|
|
|
Master Plan Environmental Impact Reports |
|
|
|
Master Tax Sharing Agreements |
|
|
|
Medical Marijuana Dispensaries |
|
|
|
Memorandun of Understanding MOU |
|
|
|
Merger Doctrine |
|
|
|
Metropolitan Planning Organizations |
|
|
|
Mining |
|
November 2009: Ninth Circuit Reverses the Approval of a Land Exchange for Failure to Take a ‘Hard Look’ at Environmental Consequences Center For Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of the Interior, ___F.3d___ 07-16423, (9th Cir. Sept. 14, 2009) | |
June 2007: Fifth District Rejects EIR for Inadequate Project Description, Baseline Assumptions, and Improperly Deferred Mitigation San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, et al. v. County of Merced, et al. 149 Cal.App.4th 645 (5th Dist. 2007) | |
January 2007: Third District Court Rules that Vested Rights Determination under SMARA Must Follow Procedural Due Process Requirements Calvert, et al., v. County of Yuba, ___Cal.App.4th___ C047857 (3rd Dist. Dec. 5, 2006) | |
December 2006: Third District Court of Appeal Upholds Placer County’s CEQA Finding that a Mining Operation Has a Sufficient Water Supply Western Placer Citizens for an Agricultural and Rural Environment v. County of Placer (Teichert, Inc.), ___Cal.App.4th___ C049364 (3rd Dist. Nov. 9, 2006) | |
June 2006: Third District Upholds Mining Reclamation Regulation as within State Mining and Geology Board’s Authority and Consistent with the Surface Mining Act Mineral Associations Coalition v. State Mining and Geology Board 138 Cal.App.4th 574 (3rd Dist. April 12, 2006) | |
October 2005: California Supreme Court Rules Director of Department of Conservation Has Standing to File Petition for Writ of Mandate under SMARA People ex rel. California Dept. of Conservation v. El Dorado County (Brunius) 36 Cal.4th 971 (Cal. 2005) | |
August 2005: Fifth District Court Orders Merced County to Pay Petitioner’s Attorney’s Fees in CEQA Case Protect Our Water et al. v. County of Merced, ___Cal. App.4th___ F044896, unpub. opinion (5th Dist. May 25, 2005) | |
December 2004: Third District Court Upholds El Dorado County’s Finding that Mining Reclamation Plan Did Not Require Preparation of an EIR El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth v. County of El Dorado 122 Cal.App.4th 1591 (3rd Dist. 2004) | |
July 2003: Director of the California Department of Conservation Lacked Standing to Petition for Writ of Mandate against Lead Agency California Department of Conservation v. El Dorado County ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. C039428 (3rd Dist. May 9, 2003) |
|
|
Ministerial Acts Exemption from CEQA |
|
|
|
Mitigated Negative Declarations |
|
December 2009: First District Underscores the Need to Evaluate Project Impacts on Wetlands, Riparian Habitats, and Other Resources under CEQA Citizens of Civic Accountability v. Town of Danville, unpublished op. A 121899 (1st Dist. 2009) | |
April 2009: Third District Rules Local Agency May Not Rely Solely on Fee Program Not Evaluated under CEQA to Issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration and to Approve Project California Native Plant Society v. County of El Dorado 170 Cal.App.4th 1026 (3rd Dist. 2009) | |
May 2008: Fourth District Court Holds Substantial Evidence Supported Fair Argument that Senior Housing Project May Have Significant Environmental Impact Citizens For Responsible Government v. City of Grand Terrace, ___Cal.App.4th___ E041493/E042092 (4th Dist. Feb. 21, 2008) | |
February 2008: Fifth District Overrules Trial Court Decision Issuing Writ, Finding No Fair Argument of Significant Impacts of Housing Development Porterville Citizens for Responsible Hillside Development v. City of Porterville, ___Cal.App.4th___ F051953 (5th Dist. Nov. 9, 2007) | |
August 2007: First District Affirms Ruling that Citizen Group Missed CEQA’s Statute of Limitations to Challenge Approval of Redevelopment Project Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda v. City of Alameda, et al. 149 Cal.App.4th 91 (1st Dist. 2007) | |
March 2007: Sixth District Court Upholds Denial of CEQA Petition Challenging Mitigated Negative Declaration for Monterey County Development Project Landwatch Monterey County v. County of Monterey, ___Cal.App.4th___ H028659, Unpub. Op. (6th Dist. Jan. 23, 2007) | |
October 2006: Third District Finds City’s Reliance on Addendum to Previous Project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration Violates CEQA Save Our Neighborhood v. Lishman 140 Cal.App.4th 1288 (3rd Dist. 2006) | |
August 2005: Second District Court Rejects Use of Mitigated Negative Declaration where Potential Wildlife and Traffic Impacts May Exist Mejia v. City of Los Angeles, ___Cal.App.4th ___ B174453 (2nd Dist. May 27, 2005; pub. ordered June 16, 2005) |
|
|
Mitigation Fees |
|
|
|
Mobile Home Park Land Conversions |
|
|
|
Mobile Home Parks |
|
|
|
Municipal Service Reviews |
|
|
|
Municipal Services Agreement |
|
|
|
Negative Declarations |
|
|
|
Negligent |
|
|
|
Notice |
|
|
|
Notices of Determination |
|
|
|
Nuisance |
|
August 2009: Third District Holds Government Code Limiting Attorney’s Fee Awards to the Amount Incurred by the County, Applies Only to Fees Authorized by County Ordinance County of Sacramento v. Sandison, ___Cal.App.4th___ C058396 (3rd Dist. May 29, 2009). | |
October 2008: First District Court Upholds County Order to Remove Recreational Club’s Long-Standing Illegal Structures Golden Gate Water Ski Club v. County of Contra Costa, 165 Cal.App.4th 249 (1st Dist. 2008) | |
June 2007: Connecticut Appellate Court Finds Landowner’s Wetlands Modification Caused Trespass to Neighbor’s Land via Water Intrusion Day v. Gabriele AC 26979 (Conn. App. May 22, 2007) | |
April 2007: Massachusetts Appellate Court Reverses Trial Court’s Finding of No Trespass and Nuisance Based upon Storm Water Overflow Trenz v. Town of Norwell 06-P-254 (Mass. App. Feb. 20, 2007) | |
December 2004: Supreme Court of Texas Creates Bright-Line Rule for Distinguishing Temporary and Permanent Nuisances Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc., et al. v. Andrea L. Bates, et al., ___S.W.3d___ 03-0236 (Tex. Oct. 1, 2004) | |
November 2004: Fourth District Court Rejects the City of Orange’s Attempt to “Take Advantage of Its Own Wrong” in Condemnation Proceeding Hurwitz v. City of Orange, ___Cal.App.4th___ G032479 (4th Dist. Sept. 24, 2004) | |
June 2004: District Court Holds that Federal Common Law Does Not Apply to Claim by Railroad Operator. Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Energy Development Corporation, ___F.Supp.2d___ 1:03-0307 (S.D. W.V. March 24, 2004). |
|
|
Offsite Public Project Impacts |
|
|
|
Open Space Lands |
|
|
|
Opinions of the Attorney General |
|
|
|
Parcel Maps |
|
June 2009: First District Court Finds Parcels Depicted on Antiquated Subdivision Map Are Not Entitled to Legal Recognition Abernathy Valley, Inc. v. County of Solano, ___Cal.App.4th___ A121817 (1st Dist. April 17, 2009) | |
March 2009: Third District Holds Real Estate Contract Void Ab Initio Based on Waiver Provision that Violated the Subdivision Map Act Sixells, LLC v. Cannery Business Park, ___Cal. App.4th___ C056267 (3rd Dist. Dec. 29, 2008) | |
March 2007: Fourth District Finds Contracts for Sale of Property Void, where Contracts Were Entered Into Prior to Recording of Parcel Maps Black Hills Investments, Inc. v. Albertson’s, Inc. 146 Cal.App.4th 883 (4th Dist. 2007) | |
December 2005: Attorney General Opines that Electronic Parcel Boundary Map Data May Be Copied and Inspected by Public under California Public Records Act Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 04-1105 (October 3, 2005) | |
November 2005: Third District Finds Parcel Map Is Not Official Government Survey; Is Subject to Impeachment Fripp v. Walters 132 Cal.App.4th 656 (3rd Dist. 2005) | |
February 2004: Processing of a Parcel Map 30 Years Earlier, to Subdivide and Sell Property to Adjoining Landowners, Did Not Create a Merger of Adjoining Landowners’ Parcels Van’t Rood v. County of Santa Clara ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. Docket No.H023716 (6th Cir. Nov. 20, 2003). |
|
|
Piers |
|
|
|
Planned Developments |
|
|
|
Police Power |
|
|
|
Post Entitlement Enforcement of CEQA Mitigation Measures |
|
|
|
Preferential Parking Zones |
|
|
|
Prescriptive Easements |
|
|
|
Prisons and Jails |
|
|
|
Private Attorney General Doctrine |
|
|
|
Private Recreational Trails and Paths |
|
|
|
'Project' |
|
|
|
Project Alternatives |
|
|
|
Project Description under CEQA |
|
|
|
Project Implementation Agreements for Forest Carbon Projects |
|
|
|
Propositions and Intiatives |
|
December 2008: First District Court Affirms Invalidity of Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan Referendum Defend Bayview Hunters Point Comm. v. City and County of San Francisco, ___Cal.App.4th___ A119061 (1st Dist. Oct. 21, 2008) | |
December 2008: Second District Finds City Attorney Has No Duty to Prepare Ballot Title or Summary where Proposed Initiative Measures Are Facially Unconstitutional Widders v. Furchtenicht, ___Cal.App.4th___ B196583 (2nd Dist. Oct. 20, 2008) | |
March 2008: Fourth District Court Deems Statutes Creating Residency Requirements for Circulators of Municipal Referendum Unconstitutional Preserve Shorecliff Homeowners v. City of San Clemente, ___Cal.App.4th___ G038649 (4th Dist. Jan. 16, 2008) | |
February 2008: First District Court Finds Defects in Signatures to Association’s Referendum Petition Cannot Be Cured by Declaration of Petition Circular Friends of Bay Meadows v. City of San Mateo, ___Cal. App.4th___ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 916 (1st Dist. Dec. 12, 2007) | |
December 2007: Fourth District Court Holds Pre-Election Challenge to Eminent Domain Initiative Does Not Violate Anti-SLAPP Law City of Riverside v. Stansbury, ___Cal.App.4th___ EO40125 & EO40973 (4th Dist. Oct. 12, 2007) | |
June 2007: Superior Court Invalidates Local Measures Limiting Expansion of UC Campus by Restricting Water and Sewer Service on Procedural Grounds Regents of the University of California v. City of Santa Cruz, et al. CISCV155136, Minute Order, Apr. 20, 2007 (Santa Cruz County Superior Court) | |
January 2007: District Court Rules that Complete Ban on Land Application of Biosolids Likely Is Preempted by State Law, Violates Dormant Commerce Clause, and Exceeds County’s Police Powers City of Los Angeles et al. v. Kern County et al., ___F.Supp.2d___ CV-06-5094 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 24, 2006) and (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2006) | |
January 2007: Fourth District Court Holds Dedication of 42-Foot Cross on War Memorial Site by City of San Diego to the U.S. Does Not Violate California Constitution Paulson v. Abdelnour, ___Cal.App.4th___ D047702 (4 Dist. Nov. 30, 2006) | |
January 2005: First District Court Finds Alameda Initiative to Amend County General Plan Inapplicable to Previously Issued Surface Mining Permit Save Our Sunol, Inc. v. Mission Valley Rock Company, ___Cal.App.4th___ A105160 (1st Dist. Nov. 19, 2004) | |
October 2004: City’s Adoption of a Qualified Voter-Sponsored Initiative Found to Be a Ministerial Act Not Subject to CEQA Native American Sacred Site and Environmental Protection Association v. City of San Juan Capistrano 120 Cal.App.4th 961 (4th Dist. 2004) | |
June 2004: The Writing on the Wall: The Applicability of Proposition 218 to Charges for Water Service after Richmond v. Shasta Community Services District | |
April 2004: A Case Study in Approving a General Plan by Initiative: A Closer Look at El Dorado County’s 2004 Ballot Measure G |
|
|
Prospective Second Dwelling CEQA Analysis |
|
|
|
Protective Covenants and Restrictions |
|
|
|
Public Improvements |
|
|
|
Public Lands |
|
July 2010: Fourth District Rejects ‘Public Streets, Highways, and Service Easements Vacation Law’ as Exclusive Method to Vacate Public Rights-Of-Way and Easements for Redevelopment Projects Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego, ___Cal.App.4th___ 37-2008-00090571-CU-MC-CTL (4th Dist. 2010) | |
October 2005: California Files Suit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Forest Service Challenging Repeal of the ‘Roadless Rule’ | |
October 2005: Sixth District Rules More CEQA Study Needed of Impacts of Off-Leash Dogs on State Beach Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz 131 Cal.App.4th 1170 (6th Dist. 2005) | |
June 2005: Third District Court Decides State Lands Commission’s Finding that Project “Enhanced The Configuration of the Shoreline” Not Supported by Substantial Evidence California Earth Corps v. California State Lands Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___ C041603 (3rd Dist. April 21, 2005) | |
December 2004: Fourth District Court Upholds EIR For Conversion of Mobile Home Park to Public Recreational Facilities El Morro Community Association v. California Department of Parks and Recreation 122 Cal.App.4th 1341 (4th Dist. 2004) | |
August 2004: The Potential Impact of Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance on the Balance of Federalism and New Mexico’s Environmental Protection Efforts Norton et al. v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, et al 124 S. Ct. 2373 (2004) | |
July 2004: Presence of Cross on Federally-Owned Land Violates Establishment Clause. Buono, et al. v. Norto, et al., ___F.3d___ 03-55032 (9th Cir. June 7, 2004). | |
June 2004: Supreme Court Finds that Sand and Gravel Are Not “Valuable Minerals” under the Pittman Underground Water Act of 1919. BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States, 541 U.S.___ 1593 (March 31, 2004). |
|
|
Public Nuisance |
|
|
|
Public Right of Way |
|
January 2009: New Jersey Appellate Division Holds State Regulation Governing Beach Road Access Invalid Borough of Avalon v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection A-3410-07T3. (N.J. App. Div. November 19, 2008) | |
January 2006: Michigan Supreme Court Protects the Public’s Right to Walk Great Lakes Shorelands and Beaches Glass v. Goeckel, 473 Mich. 667, 703 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. 2005) | |
July 2005: Fifth District Court Finds Installation of Fiber Optic Cable Permitted in Public Right-of-Way Easement Anderson v. Time Warner Telecom of California, Inc., ___Cal.App.4th ___ (5th Dist. May 13, 2005) | |
June 2005: Second District Court Rejects Neighbors’ Request to Intervene in Action Brought by City of Malibu and David Geffen Regarding Site Specific Coastal Public Access City of Malibu v. California Coastal Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___ B171650 (2nd Dist. April 25, 2005) | |
July 2004: Fourth District Court Upholds City’s Decision to Close Public Road on Grounds Road Was No Longer Necessary for Vehicular Traffic. Citizens for Improved Sorbent Access, Inc. v. City of San Diego,___Cal.App. 4th___ D043024 (4th Dist. May 14, 2004). | |
October 2002: Historic Road through Yuba County Goldfields, Offered for Dedication by the United States and Accepted and Held By Yuba County, Remains a Public Road Western Aggregates, Inc. v. County of Yuba 100 Cal.App.4th 259 (3rd Dist.2002). |
|
|
Public Transportation |
|
|
|
Public Trust Doctrine |
|
August 2010: U.S. Supreme Court Holds Beachfront Property Owners Are Not Entitled to Restored Beaches, Leaving Question of ‘Judicial Takings’ Unresolved Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, ___U.S.___ 08–1151 (June 17, 2010) | |
December 2008: First District Court Extends Application of Public Trust Doctrine to Wildlife, but Limits Suit to Government Agencies Center for Biological Diversity v. FPL Group, Inc. 166 Cal.App.4th 1349 (1st Dist. 2008) | |
November 2008: First District Finds Claim by Public for Breach of Public Trust Must Be Brought against Public Agencies— Not against Windfarm Operators Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc., ___Cal.App.4th___ A116362 (1st Dist. Sept. 18, 2008) | |
January 2006: Michigan Supreme Court Protects the Public’s Right to Walk Great Lakes Shorelands and Beaches Glass v. Goeckel, 473 Mich. 667, 703 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. 2005) | |
June 2005: Third District Court Decides State Lands Commission’s Finding that Project “Enhanced The Configuration of the Shoreline” Not Supported by Substantial Evidence California Earth Corps v. California State Lands Commission, ___Cal.App.4th___ C041603 (3rd Dist. April 21, 2005) |
|
|
Quiet Title |
|
August 2008: Third District Holds Statutory Offer of Road Dedication May Be Revoked under Common Law to Preclude Acceptance by Public Use while Pending for Acceptance by Public Entity Biagini v. Beckham, ___Cal.App.4th___ C054915 (3rd Dist. June 9, 2008) | |
July 2008: New Jersey Appellate Division finds Property Boundaries Determined by Waterline Requires Testimony Rather than Mere Documentary Evidence Kenneth Ernst and Nancy Ernst v. Hawkins A-5431-06D1 (N.J.App.Div. April 28, 2008) | |
April 2008: Fifth District Finds Appropriative Water Right Should Be Apportioned, upon Partial Sale of Property, According to Percentage of Land Acquired Nicoll v. Rudnick 160 Cal.App.4th 550 (5th Dist.2008) | |
February 2008: Second District Court Finds Quiet Title Action to Parking Spaces Required to Be Transferred Pursuant to CC&Rs Timely Filed by Party in Posession Crestmar Owners Association v. Stapakis, ___Cal.App.4th___ B191049 (2nd Dist. Dec. 13, 2007) | |
December 2006: In Quiet Title Action, Second District Finds City Accepted Offer of Dedication of Street and No Abandonment Occurred Wright v. City of Morro Bay, ___Cal.App.4th___ B176929 (2nd Dist. Nov. 7, 2006) | |
April 2004: Second District Court Prohibits Apportionment of Attorneys’ Fees when Good Faith Improver Cross- Claims to Quiet Title Tremper v. Quinones 115 Cal.App.4th 944 (2nd Dist. 2004). |
|
|
Real Property Appraisals |
|
|
|
Real Property Owner Liability |
|
|
|
Real Property Sales Agreements |
|
|
|
Reclamation Plans |
|
|
|
Recreational Common Areas in Common Interest Developments |
|
|
|
Recreational Easements |
|
|
|
Recreational Lands |
|
|
|
Redevelopment |
|
August 2010: Sixth District Reverses Validation Action Challenging Redevelopment Plan County of Los Angeles v. Glendora Redevelopment Project, et al., ___Cal.App.4th___ H032945 (6th Dist. June 15, 2010) | |
January 2010: Superior Court Rejects Petitioners’ CEQA Challenges to Sacramento ‘Railyards Project’ Sacramento Citizens Concerned About the Railyards v. City of Sacramento 34-2008-00000504-CUWM-GDS (Sacramento Super. Ct., Nov. 6, 2009) | |
October 2008: Huge New Jersey Redevelopment Project Allowed to Proceed Despite Filling in Tidal Wetlands In the Matter of Proposed Xanadu Redevelopment Project, Consolidate A-0674-04T1 / A-0688-04T1 (N.J.App. Sept. 17, 2008) | |
March 2008: Multiple Groups File Suit on Environmental Impact Report Prepared for Much-Anticipated Sacramento Specific Plan | |
January 2008: California High Court Holds Government Claim Filing Requirements Apply to Developer’s Breach of Contract Claim against City City of Stockton, et al. v. California Superior Court, ___Cal.4th___ S139237 (Cal. Dec. 3, 2007) | |
January 2008: Second District Court Finds Request for Relocation Assistance Benefits from Redevelopment Agency Untimely Bi-Rite Meat & Provisions Co. v. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Hawaiian Gardens ___Cal.App.4th___ (2nd Dist. Oct. 24, 2007) | |
January 2008: Second District Court Remands Award of Attorneys’ Fees to Condemnees in Redevelopment Agency Eminent Domain Suit Redevelopment Agency of the City of Long Beach v. Morales, ___Cal.App.4th___ BC 326364 (2nd Dist. Nov. 28, 2007) | |
August 2007: District Court Applies Porter-Cologne Act to Hold Defendants Liable for Government Response Costs under Polanco Act, but Government Not Excused from Notice Requirements Redevelopment Agency of the City of Stockton v. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad Company, ___F.Supp.2d____ Civ. S-05-02087 (E.D. Cal. June 19, 2007) | |
April 2007: Second District Finds that CEQA Review Is a Prerequisite to Approval of Agreement for Conveyance and Development of Historic Property Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, ___Cal.App.4th ___ B185656 (2nd Dist. Feb. 21, 2007) | |
February 2007: Fifth Circuit Court Finds Community Redevelopment Law’s ‘Irregular Form and Shape’ Provision Applies to the Lot Itself and Not to Any Access Issues Neilson v. City of California City, ___Cal.App.4th___ F049143 (5th Dist. Jan 9, 2007) | |
December 2006: 2006 Year-End Legislative Summary | |
November 2006: Legislative update | |
October 2006: Legislative update | |
August 2006: Legislative update | |
May 2006: Second District Court Upholds Amended Hollywood Redevelopment Plan—Substantial Evidence Supported the Finding of Blight Blue v. City of Los Angeles, ___Cal.App.4th___ B180319 (2nd Dist. March 1, 2006) | |
May 2006: Legislative update | |
April 2006: Recent land use legislation | |
March 2006: Redevelopment Agency Real Property Transfers at Fair Reuse Value: Santa Ana Transit Village and the Requirement for the Payment of Prevailing Wages | |
January 2006: Brown Act’s Pending Litigation Exception Does Not Authorize Non-Party Agency to Meet in Closed Session with Legal Counsel Shapiro v. Board of Directors of the Centre City Development Corporation, et al., ___Cal.App.4th.___ D045506 (4th Dist. Nov. 22, 2005) | |
January 2006: Fourth District Holds Project Specific EIR Not Required where Master EIR Provides Adequate Environmental Review of Project’s Impacts Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency, et al., ___Cal.App.4th___ D045274 (4th Dist. Nov. 30, 2005) | |
November 2005: California Reclamation Board Scrutinizes Development Protected by Levees and Takes Aim at Redevelopment Project in Yolo County | |
October 2005: Second District Finds Los Angeles Cannot Ignore Mitigation Measures Adopted as Part of Redevelopment Project Lincoln Place Tenants Association v. City of Los Angeles 130 Cal.App.4th 1491 (2nd Dist. 2005) | |
October 2005: Legislative update | |
July 2005: Sixth District Court Upholds City of San Jose’s Redevelopment Plan Justified by Findings of Blight Evans v. City of San Jose, et al. 128 Cal.App.4th 1123, (6th Dist. 2005) | |
May 2005: Fourth District Court Determines New Blight Findings Warranted when City Substantially Changes Existing Redevelopment Plan Boelts v. City of Lake Forest 127 Cal.App.4th 116 (4th Dist. 2005) | |
May 2005: Legislative Update | |
November 2003: Redevelopment Agency May Seek Order Compelling Party to Remove Environmental Contamination within a Project Area to Establish Standing under Polanco Redevelopment Act Redevelopment Agency of San Diego v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. 111 Cal.App.4th 912 (4th Dist. 2003). | |
November 2002: In Eminent Domain Action, First District Court of Appeal Finds Evidence of Comparable Sales to Redevelopment Agency Not Admissible to Determine Valuation Emeryville Redevelopment v. Harcros Pigments, Inc. 101 Cal.App.4th 1083 (1st Dist. Aug. 9, 2002). | |
November 2002: Agency Decision Not to Conduct Further Environmental Review of Redevelopment Plan Component Does Not Require Public Notice under CEQA Cumming v. City of San Bernardino Redevelopment Agency ___Cal.App.4th____ Case No. EO30566 (4th Dist. Aug. 9, 2002). | |
August 2002: City of Upland's Transfer of Property Violated the Community Redevelopment Law Graber v. City of Upland, ___Cal.App.4th___, Case No. E029769 (4th Dist. June 18, 2002). |
|
|
Redevelopment Plans |
|
|
|
Religious Lands |
|
| | |
October 2006: 
August 2010: