Blogs

tree in grassy meadow

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.

Subscribe

Placeholder image

September 12, 2019

Local Agencies Cannot Challenge State Project Approvals on Constitutional Grounds in Federal Court

Cities and other political subdivisions lack standing to mount a constitutional challenge in federal court against an administrative decision by a state agency. City of San Juan Capistrano v. California Public Utilities Commission, 937 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir.

Placeholder image

September 3, 2019

Court Decision Compounds Confusion Over Scope of Clean Water Act Jurisdiction

A decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia issued on August 21, 2019, highlights the continuing confusion over the definition of "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act.

Placeholder image

August 30, 2019

EPA Proposes Narrowing of Water Quality Certification Authority Under Clean Water Act

The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a lengthy proposed rule clarifying the substantive and procedural requirements for water quality certifications under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

Placeholder image

August 30, 2019

Federal Agencies Issue Major Changes to Endangered Species Act Regulations

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service has issued a set of three new final rules that substantially revise regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act.

Placeholder image

August 19, 2019

EIR’s Project Description May Present Alternative Development Options and the Agency May Approve A Variant of an Analyzed Alternative

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 reviewed in the EIR. South of Market Community Action Network v.

Placeholder image

August 13, 2019

Location Exception to CEQA’s Categorical Exemptions Applies Only to Designated Environmental Resources Affected by The Project

The location exception to CEQA's categorical exemptions does not apply to earthquake and landslide hazard zones, as they are not "environmental resources" that would be affected by a project. Berkeley Hills Watershed Coalition v. City of Berkeley, 31 Cal.App.5th 880 (1st Dist. 2019). The City of Berkeley approved construction of three single-family homes in the Berkeley Hills.

Placeholder image

August 8, 2019

Permit Amendment Unlawfully Expanded Nonconforming Use

A municipality's approval of a permit amendment allowing a quarry to import asphalt for recycling improperly expanded the quarry's nonconforming use, the First District Court of Appeal ruled in Point San Pedro Road Coalition v. County of Marin, 33 Cal. App. 5th 1074 (2019). San Rafael Rock Quarry, Inc., operates a quarry in the County of Marin that produces asphaltic concrete.

Placeholder image

July 25, 2019

Park and Recreation Fees Violated Mitigation Fee Act

The court of appeal held that the City of Alameda's development fee for parks and recreation was invalid and unenforceable because there was no reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden from new development. Boatworks, LLC v. City of Alameda, 35 Cal. App. 5th 290 (2019).

Placeholder image

July 16, 2019

Possibility of Further Applications for New Charter Schools Did Not Constitute “Current and Immediate Threat” Warranting Adoption of Urgency Ordinance Imposing Moratorium on Processing Such Applications.

The court of appeal held that an urgency ordinance enacted to impose a temporary moratorium on the establishment and operation of new charter schools in Huntington Park was invalid. California Charter Schools Association v. City of Huntington Park, et al., 35 Cal. App. 5th 362 (2019).

Placeholder image

July 11, 2019

90-Day Statute of Limitations Applies to Final Planning and Zoning Decisions by Non-Legislative Bodies and Public Officials

Planning and zoning decisions by a non-legislative body or public official authorized under a municipal code are subject to the 90-day statute of limitations of Government Code section 65009(c)(1), the court of appeal ruled in

Placeholder image

July 11, 2019

Plaintiffs Cannot Bring Inverse Condemnation Claims Before a Public Agency Makes a Final Determination on Allowable Development

An inverse condemnation challenge to a permit denial is not ripe until the government makes a final determination regarding the scope of allowable development on a plaintiff's property, the California Court of Appeal held in

Placeholder image

June 25, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court’s Knick Cemetery Decision Buries Williamson - Takings Claimants May Go Directly to Federal Courts

The United States Supreme Court overturned a 34-year-old precedent established by Williamson Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, holding that landowners pursuing takings claims need not seek redress in state courts before pursuing a federal claim. Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17–647 (U.S. S.Ct. Jun.

Placeholder image

April 24, 2019

California Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Local Aesthetic Regulation of Telecommunications Infrastructure

Local governments may require a permit conditioned on compatibility with aesthetic standards to install and maintain wireless communications infrastructure in the public right-of-way, the California Supreme Court held in

Placeholder image

April 22, 2019

Court of Appeal Denies Project Opponents a Chance to Relitigate CEQA Claims

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 on the merits.

Placeholder image

March 20, 2019

A Resolution to Dissolve a Fire District is Not Subject to Referendum

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.