CP&DR

Cal-Fed EIR Rejected For Lack Of Detail, Inadequate Alternatives

Nov 1, 2005

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, Vol. 20 No. 11 Nov 2005

A state appellate court has thrown out the environmental study for the Cal-Fed Bay-Delta Program. The Third District Court of Appeal found that the study failed to identify what water would be used to carry out the program, did not consider reduced exports of Delta water, and failed to provide known details of an "environmental water account."

Subdivision Approval Violated County General Plan, CEQA, Court Rules

Sep 1, 2005

California Environmental Quality Act, CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Orange County, Vol. 20 No. 09 Sep 2005

Orange County's approval of a controversial housing project in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains has been overturned by the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

SF Hotel's Takings Suit Concludes

Jul 1, 2005

Legal Digest, Paul Shigley, San Francisco, Takings, Vol. 20 No. 07 Jul 2005

Property owners who contend that the government has taken their property without just compensation must press their monetary claims in state court and might never get to argue in federal court.

High Court Says Coastal Commission Can't Reach Inland Part Of Project

Jun 1, 2005

Coastal development, CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Los Angeles County, Vol. 20 No. 06 Jun 2005

When a development project straddles the coastal zone boundary, the Coastal Commission may not use its jurisdiction over the portion of the project within the coastal zone to influence development outside of the zone, the state Supreme Court has ruled.

Sunrise Douglas Decision Published

Apr 1, 2005

California Environmental Quality Act, CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Vol. 20 No. 04 Apr 2005

The Third District Court of Appeal has published its decision in a case involving the environmental impact report for the 6,000-acre Sunrise Douglas community plan in the City of Rancho Cordova. In a rather harsh opinion, the Third District ruled against the Environmental Council of Sacramento and Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth. The court found that the project opponents failed to state the facts fairly and did not address the evidence in the record (see CP&DR Legal Digest, March 2005).

Cal Supremes Define 'Construction' Narrowly In Victory For Long Beach

Feb 1, 2005

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Vol. 20 No. 02 Feb 2005

An animal shelter project in the City of Long Beach that was partially funded by the city was not subject to the prevailing wage law for public works projects that was in effect at the time, the state Supreme Court has ruled.

State Supreme Court Depublishes Farmland Mitigation Decision

Apr 1, 2004

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Vol. 19 No. 04 Apr 2004

A state appellate court ruling that the loss of farmland resulting from development of a prison could not be mitigated has been depublished by the sate Supreme Court.

Court Rejects City's Findings, Throws Out Car Wash Variance

Feb 1, 2004

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Vol. 19 No. 02 Feb 2004

An appellate court has overturned the City of Los Angeles's approval of a variance that allowed the expansion of a nonconforming use. The court determined that a proposal to expand a gas station located in a residential zone did not meet the city's criteria for a variance. Specifically, the Second District Court of Appeal found that there was no evidence that imposing existing zoning requirements would create a hardship for the landowner or business owner — a requirement for a variance.

State Supreme Court Accepts Another Coastal Zone Case

Feb 1, 2004

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Vol. 19 No. 02 Feb 2004

The California Supreme Court has accepted a second case involving the application of coastal zone requirements. In January, the court voted to review a case in which the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that a state law requiring coastal zone developers to provide affordable units did not apply to a project in which all new houses would be located outside the zone.

Court Rules Mitigation For Loss Of Farmland Is Infeasible

Jan 1, 2004

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Vol. 19 No. 01 Jan 2004

An appellate court has rejected the argument that a project leading to the loss of farmland should have been mitigated with the establishment of agricultural easements on other farmland.

Articles