Project opponents were unable to state a claim against the Regents of the University of California based on allegations that a new hospital at the University of California, San Francisco campus would violate local land use...more
An appellate court interpreted a writ that ordered an agency to vacate certification of an EIR in part and file a final return to the writ “upon certification of a revised EIR” to require an assessment of the adequacy of the...more
Petitioner’s challenge to a Specific Plan, which was filed before that plan was adopted, was barred as premature, and its belated attempt to amend its petition after the Specific Plan had been adopted was barred by the...more
After deciding in a prior appeal in the same case that offsite agricultural conservation easements (ACEs) were not effective at reducing a project’s conversion of agricultural land, the Fifth Appellate District held that ACEs...more
The completion of a shooting range redevelopment project did not moot CEQA claims regarding the project even though the plaintiff had not sought an injunction against development or operation of the project. Moreover, the...more
The County of San Diego planning staff found a project qualified for a CEQA exemption under Guideline 15183, which applies to projects consistent with a general plan for which an EIR had been prepared. On appeal, the Board...more
The City of Malibu determined that an attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) did not fall within the coastal development permit exemptions set forth in its local coastal program (LCP). The court overturned the City’s...more
A court of appeal held a CEQA challenge time-barred because it was not commenced within 30 days after a Notice of Determination (NOD) was filed for approval of a subdivision map based upon a Mitigated Negative Declaration...more
A court rejected a developer’s attempt to take advantage of provisions in the Housing Accountability Act that prohibit a City from requiring a rezoning when zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan. It upheld Los...more
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which enacted Government Code section 66300, generally precludes a city from reducing the intensity of land use on a parcel where housing is allowed below what was allowed on January 1, 2018. ...more
The Ninth Circuit upheld the Federal Aviation Administration’s decision to study only the project and the no action alternative in an EIS for a new passenger terminal. However, the court found the FAA violated NEPA by failing...more
In what has become a near-annual ritual, California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed into law a large package of bills aimed at addressing the state’s glaring housing shortage. This Update summarizes two key bills in this...more
10/6/2022
/ California ,
CEQA ,
Density Bonus ,
Governor Newsom ,
Hazardous Waste ,
Jurisdiction ,
Land-Use Permits ,
Low Income Housing ,
Multi-Family Development ,
Multi-Family Housing ,
Oil & Gas ,
Prevailing Wages ,
Sustainable Communities Strategy ,
Urban Planning & Development ,
Wetlands
Another court of appeal has held that local special taxes adopted by a citizen-sponsored initiative do not require two-thirds voter approval. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City and County of San Francisco, No....more
Another court of appeal has held that local special taxes adopted by a citizen-sponsored initiative do not require two-thirds voter approval. City of Fresno v. Fresno Building Healthy Communities, No. F080264. (5th Dist.,...more
A court of appeal ruled that provisions of the California Constitution requiring a supermajority vote for special taxes imposed by local government do not apply to a special tax enacted by local initiative. City and County of...more
On April 6, 2020, the California Judicial Council adopted Emergency Rule 9, which tolled statutes of limitations on civil causes of action for the duration of the state of emergency declared by Governor Newsom on March 4,...more
The six Bay Area counties that led the way in requiring their citizens to shelter in place on March 16 and again on March 31—Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara—issued new orders on April...more
5/1/2020
/ Construction Industry ,
Construction Project ,
Construction Workers ,
Coronavirus/COVID-19 ,
Critical Infrastructure Sectors ,
Emergency Management Plans ,
Essential Workers ,
Operators of Essential Services ,
Safety Precautions ,
Shelter-In-Place ,
State and Local Government ,
Workplace Safety
Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order on April 22 suspending for a period of 60 days (1) the filing, posting, notice, and public access requirements related to certain notices under the California Environmental...more
On March 31, six Bay Area counties—Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara—jointly issued new shelter-in-place restrictions that expand, clarify, and extend certain shelter-in-place...more
On March 18, 2020, we authored an update regarding housing construction under the shelter-in-place orders jointly issued by six Bay Area counties—Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa...more
4/9/2020
/ City of Los Angeles ,
Construction Industry ,
Construction Project ,
Coronavirus/COVID-19 ,
Critical Infrastructure Sectors ,
Executive Orders ,
Governor Newsom ,
Hospitals ,
Local Ordinance ,
Municipalities ,
Operators of Essential Services ,
Real Estate Development ,
San Francisco ,
Shelter-In-Place ,
State and Local Government ,
State of Emergency
In response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) global pandemic, seven counties in California—Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz—issued orders requiring residents to shelter in place...more
On March 16, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 (coronavirus) global pandemic, seven counties – Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz – issued orders requiring residents to shelter...more
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a 34-year-old precedent established by Williamson Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, holding that landowners pursuing takings claims do not need to seek redress in state courts before pursuing...more
6/28/2019
/ 42 U.S.C. §1983 ,
Federal v State Law Application ,
Fifth Amendment ,
Inverse Condemnation ,
Just Compensation ,
Knick v Township of Scott Pennsylvania ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Property Owners ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
State Law Remedies ,
Takings Clause
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...more
6/26/2019
/ 42 U.S.C. §1983 ,
Federal v State Law Application ,
Fifth Amendment ,
Inverse Condemnation ,
Just Compensation ,
Knick v Township of Scott Pennsylvania ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Property Owners ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
State Law Remedies ,
Takings Clause
The California Legislature just sent another “stop me before I vote again” bill to the Governor. Assembly Bill 890 proposes to limit severely the scope of voter-sponsored, pro-development land use initiatives. The Governor...more