The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, issued a published decision (North Murrieta Community, LLC v. City of Murrieta, Case No. E072663) on June 8, 2020, that addressed how inconsistencies can arise...more
• In Northern California Water Association et al. v. State Water Resources Control Board et al., the California Third District Court of Appeal rejected challenges to a new annual fee on water right permit and license holders...more
3/30/2018
/ Annual Regulatory Fees ,
Appeals ,
Burden of Proof ,
Bureau of Reclamation ,
In-Lieu Fees ,
Land Developers ,
Permits ,
Property Owners ,
Public Agencies ,
Reversal ,
Supremacy Clause ,
Vetting ,
Water Resources Control Board ,
Water Rights ,
Water Supplies
• In Visalia Retail, LP v. City of Visalia, the California Court of Appeal has rejected a challenge brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to a land use policy in the City of Visalia's General Plan...more
2/8/2018
/ CEQA ,
City Planning Departments ,
Commercial Real Estate Market ,
Commercial Use ,
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ,
General Plan ,
Land Developers ,
Property Dedication ,
Property Owners ,
State and Local Government ,
Urban Planning & Development
In Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214, 2017 WL 2694699 (U.S.S.C. June 23, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, addressed "one of the critical questions" in the law of regulatory takings:...more
6/30/2017
/ City Planning Departments ,
Common Ownership ,
Fifth Amendment ,
Just Compensation ,
Land Developers ,
Land Parcels ,
Murr v Wisconsin ,
Private Property ,
Property Owners ,
Reasonable Expectations Test ,
Regulatory Takings ,
SCOTUS ,
State and Local Government ,
Takings Clause ,
Zoning Laws
In a recent decision, California's Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order and upheld the City of San Jose's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as a legitimate exercise of the local police power. California...more