Sullivan's Permitting & Land Use Practice Group and Litigation Department have released the second issue of their Zoning and Development Newsletter. The publication aims to provide our firm's clients and others interested...more
The Court of Appeals of Minnesota (“Appellate Court”) addressed in a May 9th Opinion an appeal of a decision by the Stearns County Board of Commissioners (“Commissioners”) to deny an application for a conditional use permit...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
The Court of Appeals of Minnesota (“Court”) addressed in a December 20th Opinion an issue arising out of a proposal to build two solar-energy production facilities (“Solar-Energy Facilities”). See In the Matter of the...more
A project challenger failed to exhaust administrative remedies because an email exchange and dinner meeting with city officials expressing general concerns about a recent permit approval did not satisfy the burden to...more
In Protect Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin, 70 Cal. App. 5th 951 (2021), the court of appeal upheld a city’s reliance on the infill development categorical exemption under CEQA for a new gas station in an existing shopping...more
The Court of Appeals of Minnesota (“Court”) in a July 12th Opinion addressed an issue arising out of the proposed construction of a photovoltaic solar energy system (“System”). See In the Matter of the Application of United...more
One of the challenges of renewable energy development is managing the permitting process. Understanding how to navigate state and local laws can be integral to a developer’s permitting success, especially where a community...more
On May 8, 2020, the Third Appellate District, certified for publication its earlier decision in Petrovich Development Co. LLC v. City of Sacramento (C087283), where the Court, in a rare decision, voided a city council’s...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
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
Insurers often claim “economic damages” are not covered under a standard commercial general liability (CGL) policy. The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Thee Sombrero, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 28 Cal. App....more
A few weeks ago the North Carolina Court of Appeals plowed new ground: issuing the first opinion to cite Appellate Rule 38(b) since the Appellate Rules were adopted in 1975. This long-neglected rule was the catalyst for a...more
The Court of Appeals of Minnesota (“Court”) addressed in a March 25th opinion the denial of a Conditional-Use Permit (“CUP”) to construct and operate a one-megawatt solar energy system (“Solar Garden”). See In re An order...more
Spring now being practically “in the air,” a bit of CEQA “spring cleaning” seems appropriate – so here’s a brief look at the status of some significant CEQA-related cases that are now pending before our Supreme Court, or in...more
The court of appeal held that the City of St. Helena did not violate CEQA by approving a demolition permit and design review for a multi-family residential project without preparing an environmental impact report. McCorkle...more
General liability insurance policies normally cover “property damage.” Physical injury to, or outright destruction of, property almost always fits within policy coverage. But what about situations when the property is not...more
On December 18, 2018, the First Appellate District, in McCorkle v. St. Helena (A153238), affirmed the trial court’s denial of a Petition for Writ of Mandate challenging the City of St. Helena’s approval of a multi-dwelling...more
Claims of significant noise impact unsupported by expert opinion, fact, or reasonable inference did not provide grounds for challenging a negative declaration, the court of appeal held in Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa, 23 Cal....more
In an unsurprising decision, the Second District Court of Appeal upheld Ventura County’s decision to a deny a use permit that would allow tigers to be kept on property located within a half-mile of a residential area. Hauser...more
In Protect Telegraph Hill v. City and County of San Francisco (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 261, the First District Court of Appeal rejected a series of CEQA challenges to San Francisco’s approval of a conditional use permit for the...more
A court of appeal has ruled that opponents of a new Planned Parenthood clinic did not establish a fair argument that anti-clinic protests might cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, the City of South San...more
In McElhaney v. City of Moab, 2017 UT 65, —- P.3d —-, the Utah Supreme Court held that an adjudicative land use decision, and likely all administrative decisions subject to substantial evidence review on appeal, must include...more
Many times, at hearings to obtain either special exceptions or conditional use approvals, applicants, for one reason or another, are under the impression that they simply have to call one or two witnesses to confirm, in a...more
• In Respect Life South San Francisco v. City of South San Francisco, California's First District Court of Appeal rejected petitioners' arguments that protests to a Planned Parenthood Clinic would cause significant...more