The First District Court of Appeal ruled that the California Department of Forestry (CDF) improperly approved an exemption for harvesting less than three acres of timber where previous timber harvesting plans included mitigation measures prohibiting tree-cutting in the proposed area. Even though the previous approvals had expired, the court in Katzeff v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, filed January 28, 2010, concluded that the adopted mitigation measures could not be deleted without determining the continuing need for the mitigation. Read more here.
Public Law: Municipal Lawyer
Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 09:44:54 AM
Mitigation Measures May Survive Expired Approval
Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 08:10:21 AM
Departments Revoke Recent Changes To Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Consultation Requirements
The Departments of Commerce and the Interior revoked an Endangered Species Act (ESA) rule previously enacted by the Bush administration. The Rule had expanded the circumstances in which an agency may determine not to engage in Section 7 consultations prior to undertaking an action that may affect threatened or endangered species. In revoking the rule, the Departments were responding to a March 2009 Executive Order in which President Obama requested that the Departments to formally reconsider this rule.
Now that the rule is revoked, federal agencies must complete the requisite Section 7 consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration before taking actions that may affect threatened or endangered species.
Friday, February 13, 2009, 11:28:22 AM
Agencies Must Either First Complete CEQA Review or Retain Discretion to Modify or Cancel Contracts Subject to CEQA Until Environmental Review is Complete
The Fourth District Court of Appeal ("Court") recently set aside a water supply agreement between a water district and a developer because the agreement improperly committed the water district to a definite course of action without adequate review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the case Riverwatch et. at. v. Olivenhain Municipal Water District. Click here to read on.
Friday, September 12, 2008, 08:09:01 AM
City of Cotati Defends Affordable Housing and the California Tiger Salamander
The Pacific Legal Foundation ("PLF") recently filed a lawsuit in federal court against the City of Cotati's inclusionary housing ordinance which requires new development to set aside affordable housing units or pay a fee to finance affordable housing. PLF, who represents the plaintiff developer, claims that the City is trying to force the developer to subsidize affordable housing, thus creating an unlawful taking. Additionally, PLF alleges that a condition imposed on the development project for mitigation of impacts on an endangered species, the California Tiger Salamander, is an unlawful taking. In response to PLF's lawsuit, the City filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. The City is represented by Meyers Nave.
Friday, February 1, 2008, 09:43:00 AM
Trial Court Rules Global Warming Analysis Not Required Under CEQA
A Riverside County
Superior Court judge ruled that there was no legal requirement to analyze
greenhouse gases (GHGs) and global warming impacts under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Highland Springs v. City of
Continue reading "Trial Court Rules Global Warming Analysis Not Required Under CEQA" »
Search this site:
TOPICS
- Revenue and Taxation
- Appeals
- Climate Change and Green Initiatives
- Eminent Domain and Inverse Condemnation
- Environmental Law
- Government Tort and Civil Rights
- Labor and Employment
- Land Use
- Litigation
- Municipal Law
- Public Contracts and Construction
- Public Finance
- Public Law
- Public Power and Telecommunications
- Redevelopment, Real Estate and Housing
- School Law
- Special District Law
- Transit-Oriented Development
RECENT POSTS
- Agreement for City Services to Proposed Tribal Casino is Not a Project under CEQA
- New Decision Affects Miranda
- CEQA Guidelines on Greenhouse Gas Impacts Take Effect in March
- Criminal Defendants Must Allege Specific Facts to Access Police Personnel Records, Court of Appeal Affirms
- Even Where No Environmental Review Was Undertaken, 30-Day Statute of Limitations for CEQA Challenge Applies Whenever NOD is Filed
- Mitigation Measures May Survive Expired Approval
- County Must Include ERAF Revenue in Calculating Pass-Through Payments By Redevelopment Agency to School District
- Initiative Proposes to Suspend AB 32, California's Greenhouse Gas Law
- State Initiative to Legalize Marijuana One Step Closer to Ballot
- Mitigation Measures May Survive Expired Approval
DISCLAIMER
- This blawg is published by the attorneys and client relations team of Meyers Nave. It does not necessarily represent the views of our law firm or our clients, and is not sponsored or endorsed by our clients. The purpose of this blawg is to assist in dissemination of information about public agency laws and trends. No representation is made about the accuracy of the information. The information contained in this blawg is provided only as general information for education purposes, and blawg topics may or may not be updated subsequent to their initial posting.
By visiting this blawg site you understand that this information is not provided in the course of an attorney-client relationship and is not intended to constitute legal advice. This blawg should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state. This blawg site is not intended to solicit clients and Meyers Nave does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this blawg in a state where this blawg site does not comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.
