Page 21 - Public Resources Code News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

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 around section 30821’s constitutionality. In Lent v. California Coastal Commission, the Second Distr...

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 Appeal has upheld a Commission penalty of $4,185,000 on Malibu homeowners who refused to remove struct...

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 junior year of high school, Butte got involved with an organization in southeastern San Diego, Outdoor O...

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, substantially deferring to the actions and prosecutorial discretion of the State Water Resources Control ...

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 especially for public agencies trying to pursue necessary public-infrastructure projects. In January ...