Page 11 - Public Resources Code News Today

Property Owner’s Beach Access Case The California Legislature gave sharper teeth to the Coastal Act in 2014 by authorizing the Coastal Commission to impose a staggering penalty against any person in violation of the Coastal Act’s public access provisions. Under Public Resources Code section 30821, the Coastal Commission could impose a penalty of up to $11,250 for each day the violation persists for up to five years. As potential penalties could exceed $20 million, questions have swirled aro...

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: Three months ago, the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld a Coastal Commission fine of $1 million on homeowners who performed major reconstruction on their Malibu home without obtaining coastal permits and refused to halt construction after notification of the violation by Commission staff. (See our report: Coastal Commission Order to Homeowners to Remove Seawall and Pay $1 Million Fine Upheld). Now, the Second District Court of Ap...

Tatiana Butte is advocating for state agencies that govern the state’s outdoor spaces to start prioritizing equity and access issues. / Photo by Adriana Heldiz Until her junior year of high school, going outside for Tatiana Butte meant running errands or going to the store. Butte, who grew up in Paradise Hills and continues to live there, said that as a kid, the parks closest to her home often felt unsafe, and her family didn’t have a car to drive to nicer ones farther away. During her juni...

On February 18, 2021, the First Appellate District issued an opinion in Sweeny et al. v. California Regional Water Quality Control Bd., San Francisco Bay Region et al. (Case No. A153583) (“ Sweeny”).  The opinion is much anticipated given its relevance to the continued validity of the State Water Resources Control Board’s recently adopted State Procedures for Discharges of Dredged and Fill Material (“Procedures”).  The Appellate Court reversed the lower court in the entirety, subst...

In an opinion filed on December 29, 2020, the First Appellate District in Santa Clara Valley Water District v. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board upheld a Responsible Agency’s imposition of additional mitigation more than a year after it had issued an initial approval for the project.  Although the court was careful to say that it was addressing “unique circumstances” that would “seldom arise,” the decision is potentially problematic for project proponents, and e...

In Santa Clara Valley Water District v. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, No. A157127, 2020 WL 7706795 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2020), the court ruled that CEQA does not constrain an agency’s authority to enforce the laws it administers, including those authorizing imposition of mitigation requirements. The court held that, after an EIR for a project has been certified, a regional water quality control board, acting as a responsible agency, can impose mitigation on the p...

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: In a published opinion filed December 29, 2020, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate filed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) challenging waste discharge requirements (WDRs) belatedly imposed by a responsible agency, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Board), on lead agency District’s flood control project.  Santa Clara Valley Water ...

Beginning in January 2022, this measure requires local governments to include medium- to high-density housing for moderate and above moderate-income households in general plan regional housing elements. The purpose of this measure is to increase housing density for higher income earners to facilitate the construction of additional housing units. Specifically, in metropolitan but not unincorporated areas, a local government must identify 25 percent of its sites for moderate income and 25 percent...

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: As we rapidly approach the end of a year of COVID-related challenges and uncertainties, CEQA practitioners may want to review the year’s key legislation impacting CEQA and its application, which was contained in the handful of bills summarized below. AB 168 (Aguilar-Curry). This urgency legislation became effective with the Governor’s signature on September 25, 2020.  It amends Government Code §§ 65400, 65913.4 and 65941.1 to ...

The First District Court of Appeal held that Public Resources Code section 22531 unconstitutionally restricted judicial review of licensing decisions by the Energy Resources...