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.

State Authorizes Rental Inclusionary Housing Requirements

Governor Signs Housing Legislation, Including Streamlining Bill

Legislature Seeks To Prevent Local Voters From Enacting Many Types of Pro-Development Initiatives

College District's Approval of Agreement to Buy Land Did Not Trigger CEQA
A community college district's approval of an agreement to buy land for possible use as a new campus did not trigger CEQA review where the agreement required an EIR before the sale could be consummated and the District had not otherwise committed itself to building a new campus on the site. Bridges v. San Jacinto Community College District, No. E065213 (4th Dist., Aug. 8, 2017).

City Cannot Compel State University to Collect and Remit City Taxes

CEQA Not Preempted by Federal Rail Transportation Law for Projects Carried Out by State Agencies

Federal Courts Lack Jurisdiction to Hear Challenges to EPA Objections to State Water Pollution Discharge Permits

NEPA Violations Did Not Undermine Validity of EIS for Nuclear Missile Maintenance Facility

Air District Permit May Be Challenged Under CEQA

Property Owner Who Proceeds With Development Under a Permit Cannot Challenge Land-Use Conditions Attached to the Permit

California Supreme Court Holds Governor’s Executive Order Setting 2050 GHG Targets Need Not Be Used As CEQA Significance Threshold

Supreme Court Announces New Test for Regulatory Takings Claims

Double Trouble - Is Black Sky Capital Blue Skies for Lenders?

Action to Invalidate Building Permit Barred by Failure to File Timely Challenge to Underlying Site Development Permit
In Citizens for Beach Rights v. City of San Diego, 10 Cal.App.5th 1301 (2017), the court of appeal held that a challenge to issuance of a building permit necessarily included a challenge to the validity of the underlying site development permit, which was barred by the 90-day statute of limitations in Government Code section 65009.
