CP&DR

LAO Water Recommendations Touch Sensitive Areas

Oct 24, 2008

California, CP&DR Staff, Featured Articles, Vol. 23 No. 11 Nov 2008, Water

State lawmakers need to decide what to do with the Bay Delta, "and soon," the Legislative Analyst's Office urges in a new report. The lengthy document released in late-October is mostly an overview of the state's water system, but the report concludes with several potentially controversial recommendations.

Court Says Grading Needed Local Permit Despite State Approval, Federal Funding

Oct 24, 2008

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Riverside County, Vol. 23 No. 11 Nov 2008, Wetlands

A Riverside County property owner needed to get a county grading permit to repair a seasonal stream's spillway, even though the state Department of Fish and Game had apparently approved the project and the Federal Emergency Management Agency had funded it. So ruled the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, in 2 1/2-year-old litigation over a $500 fine.

Council Resolution Doesn't Affect Property Rights, Court Rules

Oct 22, 2008

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Los Angeles County, Takings, Vol. 23 No. 11 Nov 2008

A property owner's challenge of a Sierra Madre City Council resolution directing a committee to consider stricter regulation of hillside development has been thrown out by the Second District Court of Appeal.

The unanimous three-judge appellate panel upheld a trial court judge who had ruled that the situation was not "ripe" for judicial review. Although the resolution might lead to less potential development, the resolution itself had no binding implications for the property owner's land, the Second District determined.

In Brief: Stockton Settles General Plan Lawsuit

Oct 6, 2008

California, CP&DR Staff, In Brief, Vol. 23 No. 10 Oct 2008

In this month's roundup of land use news: Stockton agrees to numerous climate change considerations; Merced County approves a 16,000-unit specific plan; the California Planning Roundtable reconsiders jobs-housing balance; downtown L.A. courthouse costs skyrocket.

Property Rights Case Law Evolves With 9th Circuit Decision

Oct 1, 2008

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Takings, Vol. 23 No. 10 Oct 2008, Washington

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals continued to flesh out its property rights jurisprudence with a decision from Spokane, Washington — this time by siding with property owners seeking to protect their own rights by enforcing historic preservation regulations.

Environment Group Sues Wrong Parties Over Bird Death Controversy

Oct 1, 2008

Alameda County, CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Vol. 23 No. 10 Oct 2008

Members of the public may sue to defend the public trust resource of wildlife, but the suit must be filed against public agencies responsible for protecting the wildlife, according to the First District Court of Appeal.

EPA Ordered To Write Rules For Construction Site Runoff

Oct 1, 2008

Clean Water Act, CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Vol. 23 No. 10 Oct 2008

The Environmental Protection Agency has until December 1, 2009, to promulgate standards for runoff from construction sites. The deadline is contained in a 2006 federal district court ruling that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld.

Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Withstands Property Rights Suit

Oct 1, 2008

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Los Angeles County, Takings, Vol. 23 No. 10 Oct 2008

A property owner challenging the constitutionality of an inclusionary housing ordinance may not employ the nexus and rough proportionality tests from the Nollan and Dolan cases, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.

Court Bolsters Agricultural Land Preservation

Sep 24, 2008

CP&DR Staff, Humboldt County, Legal Digest, Vol. 23 No. 10 Oct 2008, Zoning

In a decision bolstering farmland preservation, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled that Humboldt County can enforce updated land use regulations against a landowner whose original Williamson Act contract predates the regulations.

Map Recorded In 1915 Rejected; All Pre-1929 Maps In Question

Sep 4, 2008

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Sonoma County, Subdivision Map Act, Vol. 23 No. 09 Sep 2008

The validity of a 1915 subdivision map has been rejected by the First District Court of Appeal in a decision that calls into question any subdivision recorded before 1929.

The court determined the 1915 map for a 25-lot subdivision in southern Sonoma County is not valid today because the county had very little discretion under the Subdivision Map Act in place at the time. The decision provides a significant victory to local governments concerned about an untold number of antiquated subdivision maps that do not conform to modern-day land use planning principles.