The California Supreme Court ruled that water rates and other local utility charges are considered “taxes” for the purpose of California Constitution Article II, Section 9 and therefore exempt from the referendum process....more
A court of appeal upheld the City of Madera’s interpretation of a municipal code provision requiring “a five-sevenths vote of the whole of the [City] Council” as mandating the approval of five councilmembers, rather than a...more
The First District Court of Appeal held that the San Francisco County Transportation Authority is a state agency and thus did not need to comply with local public access rules. SF Urban Forest Coalition v. City and County of...more
Continuing a trend toward stricter application of the administrative exhaustion doctrine, an appellate court held that plaintiffs could not bring a takings claims against the Coastal Commission because they did not “present...more
The court of appeal held that a challenge to a partially recirculated EIR of the County of Amador was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, which precludes relitigation by the same parties of issues previously adjudicated...more
The court of appeal held that a fire district’s resolution to dissolve the district was not a legislative act subject to voter referendum. Southcott v. Julian-Cuyamaca Fire Protection District, No. D074324 (4th Dist., Mar. 7,...more
An appellate court held that the City of Los Angeles’s procedure for approval or denial of development projects in Venice did not violate residents’ due process rights because the procedure was ministerial. Coalition to...more
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 Ninth Circuit held that the City of Carson’s mobile home rent control board’s decision not to factor in debt service increases in its adjustment of a rental rate for a mobile home park did not result in a regulatory...more
The Third District Court of Appeal rejected a CEQA challenge to a county’s general plan update, holding that a county’s California Timberland Productivity Act finding that a residence or structure is necessary for timberland...more