A Court of Appeal held that the CEQA statute of limitations period does not begin to run after the filing of an initial notice of determination if the project is appealed. Central for Biological Diversity v. County of San...more
In Durkin v. City & County of San Francisco (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 643, the First District Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in granting the real party in interest’s special motion to strike under anti-SLAPP...more
The court of appeal held that the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) does not apply to a one-unit single-family home project. Reznitskiy v. County of Marin, 79 Cal.App.5th 1016 (2022). ...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
A Court of Appeal held that the state’s density bonus law (Gov’t Code § 65915) does not require applicants to submit financial information to support requests for incentives or waivers and preempted a city ordinance that...more
Multiple applications for a development project are not required where the first permit denial makes clear that no development of the property would be allowed under any circumstance. Felkay v. City of Santa Barbara, No....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
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
California Appellate Court Looks to Local Ordinance’s Intention for Determination - In determining what makes a “super majority” of a governing body, a California appellate court said the entire number of seats on the body...more
The Court of Appeals of Indiana “Court“ in an April 18th opinion addressed a zoning question associated with a cement kiln’s desire to utilize liquid waste derived fuels (“LWDF”). See Essroc Cement Corp v. Clark County Board...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
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
The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld a mitigated negative declaration where the project opponent correctly appealed the approval of entitlements but failed to properly appeal the CEQA determination under the City of San...more
On December 20, 2017, the Fourth District Court of Appeal delivered a solid win for the City of San Diego in a multi-faceted challenge to its approval of a private school pursuant to a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”)....more
Best Best & Krieger LLP partners Scott Ditfurth and Mala Subramanian successfully represented the City of Lafayette in a dispute with homeowners over their proposed home building plan. In a fight that centered on maintaining...more
California's Fourth District Court of Appeal has provided useful guidance on processing requirements for environmental review documents prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when project modifications...more
In its February 14 decision (certified for publication on March 15) in Residents Against Specific Plan 380 v. County of Riverside, the Fourth Appellate District upheld the County of Riverside’s (“County’s”) approval of a...more
In March 2015, Katie and Chris Brewer bought 22 acres in Chapel Hill, Orange County – a rural, wooded spot – through an entity called Southeast Property Group, LLC. Among other things on their property, the Brewers intended...more
Woody’s Group, Inc. v. City of Newport Beach (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1012 - Why It Matters: Woody’s Group establishes a very low threshold to prove a decision maker’s unacceptable probability of actual bias, thereby...more