27th Annual* *Land Use Law & Planning Conference Attendees, contact the Circulation Manager to access your special discount! 805-652-0695 or email firstname.lastname@example.org!
California State University East Bay undertook a dual-purpose environmental impact report for its campus master plan and two construction projects, meant to enable the campus to grow from roughly 12,000 to 18,000 students in the next 30 years. The construction projects consisted of a housing complex and a parking structure. The EIR included alternatives at both the master plan and construction project level.
In 2006, a developers Y.T. Wong and SMI Construction, Inc. proposed to divide two existing ‘R-1’ zoned parcels totaling 1.89 acres into 11 lots to allow for the development of single-family homes in the community of Fairview in unincorporated Alameda County, bordering the City of Hayward. The county sent out written notices to a number of agencies, neighbors, and other interested parties, including the group that would become the appellants, indicating the county’s intent to utilize the section 15332 (Infill Development) CEQA exemption.
The premise behind the categorical exemptions in the California Environmental Quality Act for infill and single-family projects is that projects in relatively dense, established urban areas are unlikely to create major impacts. According to a recent decision, this premise has its limits.
Nearly two years ago I wrote an article that pondered the effects of legalized marijuana on California's cities. The options, for those cities that didn't forbid cannabis entirely, seemed to range from stoner wastelands to magical communities of mellowness.
An appellate court has upheld the City of Berkeley’s application of the density bonus law and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption for an infill project.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has aside a summary judgment in favor of a city in a dispute over a church’s request to relocate and develop an expanded church facility in an industrial park.
The unanimous three-judge appellate panel ruled that District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton’s decision in favor of the City of San Leandro was erroneous, and the Ninth Circuit sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit did not rule on the merits of the case.
The California Supreme Court will review a case in which Alameda County and a housing developer argue that a California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit filed by project opponents should have been dismissed because the opponents did not raise their objection during the administrative process.
It’s a saga straight out of the Rust Belt: auto giant closes its factory, laying off nearly 5,000 auto workers, and leaving behind an aging structure and contaminated site of 370 acres. Businesses throughout the region, which supply parts to the factory, also take a hit.
Many long, hard-fought battles have been waged for the control of high ground, and the one surrounding Pleasanton’s Measure D is no exception.
Measure D asks whether a 51-home development known as Oak Grove may be built on a parcel of 562 acres in the southeastern hills above the city, a Bay Area bedroom community which sits in a valley in inland Alameda County. Measure D was placed on the ballot by the City Council following a long saga of denials, approvals, lawsuits, new ordinances, and community outcry. A yes vote allows the development to go forward per the agreement with the city council; a no vote forces would-be developers to start from scratch.