California Land Use & Development Law Report
California Land Use & Development Law Report
California Land Use & Development Law Report offers insights into legal issues relating to development and use of land and federal, state and local permitting and approval processes.
Logging Plan Not Categorically Excluded From Environmental Review Under NEPA
BLM’s Lease of Lands in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve Using Programmatic-Level EIS Did Not Violate NEPA
Violation of Zoning Ordinance Limiting Medical Marijuana Cultivation Did Not Justify Seizure of Dispensary’s Medical Marijuana
County’s Blanket Classification of All Well Permits As Ministerial Under CEQA Was Improper
County May Abandon Public Easement Rights to Prevent Unauthorized Use of Road
Condemned Property Not Used Within Ten Years Must Be Offered for Sale to Original Owner
The City of Los Angeles was required to offer to sell condemned property back to its original owner because the property had not been used and the City Council did not adopt a resolution reauthorizing the public use until 19 days past the 10-year statutory deadline. Rutgard v. City of Los Angeles, No. B297655 (2nd Dist., July 30, 2020).
Municipal Water Rates are Protected from Referendum Challenges
Agencies Must Preserve Emails For CEQA Record of Proceedings
EPA Failed to Evaluate Potential Adverse Impact of Pesticide on Monarch Butterfly
Development Agreement, Not Vesting Tentative Map, Governed Whether New Fees Applied to Project
State Water Board Has Authority to Implement Temporary Emergency Regulations Curtailing Water Diversions Without Prior Evidentiary Hearing
Disparate-Impact Claims Under FHA and FEHA Must Demonstrate Causal Connection Between a City’s Approval of Development Projects and Racial Disparity in Housing
Public Universities Must Comply With CEQA When Deciding to Increase Enrollment Beyond Levels Specified in Development Plan EIR
Agency Notice of Deadline for Filing Suit Was Defective
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 statutory purpose of eliminating doubt as to when the statute of limitations to begins to run. Alford v. County of Los Angeles, No. B293393 (2nd Dist., July 1, 2020).