A recent decision highlights the importance of strict compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act’s requirement that findings be made every five years concerning unexpended fees. The Sixth District Court of Appeal held that the...more
Plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies when challenging the City’s approval of a homeowner’s development project on the ground that a Class 1 categorical exemption was inapplicable. Arcadians for Environmental...more
The Court of Appeal held that a ruling denying a petition for writ of mandate constitutes the final judgment in the case and triggers the 60-day period for filing an appeal. Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale, 76 Cal.App.5th 43...more
The Court of Appeal ruled that a suit concerning an affordable housing fee that plaintiff had agreed to pay two decades earlier was still timely because the 90-day limitations period under the Subdivision Map Act did not...more
The Court of Appeal held that an action to set aside an ordinance restricting short-term vacation rentals on the ground of failure to obtain a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) was barred by the 90-day statute of limitations...more
The Second District Court of Appeal held that a Board of Supervisors decision on the appeal of a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission was untimely under the County Code and hence that the Planning Commission’s...more
A court of appeal invalidated a water district’s adopted rate increases, concluding that the district failed to meet its burden under Proposition 218 of establishing that the increases did not exceed the cost of providing the...more
An initiative measure that required new development to mitigate not only its individual traffic impacts but also cumulative impacts of other projects on traffic levels of service violated the rough-proportionality standard of...more
The Court of Appeal held that an agreement obligating a developer and city to indemnify LAFCO against claims arising from its annexation decision lacked consideration because the agreement simply required LAFCO to do what it...more
The Court of Appeal upheld a Coastal Commission cease-and-desist order requiring demolition of a seawall and payment of a $1 million penalty by homeowners who performed major reconstruction on their coastal home without...more
A court of appeal held that a plaintiff did not have public interest standing to sue Coastal Commissioners for violating disclosure obligations concerning ex parte communications because the lawsuit was not brought as a...more
An administrative agency must provide the notice required under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6(f) specifying when its decision becomes final, and may not add potentially confusing information that undermines the...more
Nicholas Honchariw’s battles with the County of Stanislaus over his 9-lot subdivision have now resulted in a fourth published appellate decision. (See our prior reports, County Violates California’s Anti-NIMBY Law by...more
The Court of Appeal held that where a city councilmember’s actions evinced bias toward the project, the applicant did not receive a fair hearing and the City Council’s denial of a conditional use permit would be set aside....more
The Third District Court of Appeal held that a suit for refund of developer fees based on failure to make findings required under the Mitigation Fee Act was an action for a “penalty or forfeiture” subject to the one-year...more
An EIR’s project description may identify alternative development schemes proposed for a single project, and the agency may approve a modified version of the project that incorporates elements of one of the alternatives...more
The Second District Court of Appeal has held that California’s minimum wage law is a matter of statewide concern and hence applies to charter cities as well as general law cities. Marquez v. City of Long Beach, No. B282270...more
3/1/2019
/ Appeals ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Construction Industry ,
Home Rule States ,
Local Ordinance ,
Municipalities ,
Prevailing Wages ,
Public Projects ,
Public Works ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage and Hour
Land Use and Development Case Summaries (short form) -
1. PLANNING AND ZONING -
CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE V. CITY OF MORENO VALLEY,
26 Cal. App. 5th 689 (2018) -
Based on the language and...more
1/29/2019
/ Anti-SLAPP ,
Appeals ,
Building Permits ,
Building Standards ,
CA Supreme Court ,
California Coastal Commission ,
CEQA ,
Clean Water Act ,
Coastal Real Estate ,
Density Bonus ,
Discharge of Pollutants ,
Endangered Species ,
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ,
Exemptions ,
Fully Protected Species ,
General Plan ,
Homeowners ,
Housing Developers ,
Housing Market ,
Impact Fees ,
Land-Use Permits ,
Legislative Agendas ,
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) ,
Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
New Legislation ,
Property Owners ,
Real Estate Development ,
Referendums ,
Regulatory Takings ,
School Districts ,
State and Local Government ,
Subdivision Map Act ,
Sustainability ,
Traffic Impact Assessments ,
Urban Planning & Development ,
Waters of the United States ,
Wetlands ,
Zoning Laws
A Summary of Published Appellate Opinions Under the California Environmental Quality Act -
The California Supreme Court issued its only CEQA opinion of 2018 at the end of the year. In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, the...more
1/14/2019
/ Air Quality Standards ,
Appeals ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Building Permits ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Carbon Emissions ,
CEQA ,
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ,
Environmental Policies ,
Excessive Noise ,
Exemptions ,
Final Judgment ,
General Plan ,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ,
Historic Preservation ,
Housing Developers ,
Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
Mixed-Use Zoning ,
Oil & Gas ,
Railroads ,
Railways ,
Real Estate Market ,
Regulatory Oversight ,
Res Judicata ,
Risk Mitigation ,
Sierra Club v County of Fresno ,
Standard of Review ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Substantial Evidence Standard ,
Tenants ,
Traffic Impact Assessments ,
Trucking Industry ,
Urban Planning & Development
The Sixth District Court of Appeal invalidated a school district’s Level 1 development fee because the underlying fee study did not properly calculate anticipated growth and included the cost of hypothetical new schools that...more
The Second District Court of Appeal held that the purported amendment of an agreement to extend the period in which billboards were permitted within the City constituted a new agreement and hence violated the terms of a...more
Broadly construing Government Code § 65009, which establishes a 90-day limitations period for claims under the Planning and Zoning Law, an appellate court held that approval of an agreement allowing removal of trees...more
In a major victory for beekeepers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has vacated the EPA’s approval of the pesticide sulfoxaflor, concluding that the approval was based on “flawed and limited data” regarding...more