CP&DR

Measure to Block El Toro Airport Overturned on Multiple Grounds

Feb 1, 2002

Legal Digest, other, Vol. 17 No. 02 Feb 2002

An Orange County ballot initiative that sought to block the development of a civilian airport at the closed El Toro Marine Corps Air Station has been thrown out by a state appellate court. The court ruled that Measure F from March 2000 interfered with essential governmental functions, crossed the line into administrative activities, and was vague.

State Supreme Court Will Rule Validity of Antiquated Subdivision

Feb 1, 2002

Legal Digest, other, Vol. 17 No. 02 Feb 2002

The state Supreme Court will review an appellate court ruling that subdivision maps recorded prior to the first version of the Subdivision Map Act in 1893 do not create legal parcels. In January, all seven of the state's high court justices voted to review the decision in Gardner v. County of Sonoma (see CP&DR Legal Digest, November).

Court Rules Not Every Party in a Contract Is ‘Necessary' For a Lawsuit

Feb 1, 2002

Legal Digest, other, Vol. 17 No. 02 Feb 2002

The Third District Court of Appeal has allowed a California Environmental Quality Act suit to proceed even though the plaintiffs did not name every entity involved in the proposed project.

Northern California Builders' Attack of Endangered Species Act Fails

Feb 1, 2002

Legal Digest, other, Vol. 17 No. 02 Feb 2002

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review an endangered species decision in a California case handled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court's decision, issued in mid-January, means that the appellate court opinion upholding the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services listing of four species of fairy shrimp that live in California as either endangered or threatened will stand.

In Brief

Feb 1, 2002

In Brief, other, Vol. 17 No. 02 Feb 2002

CP&DR's infamous monthly roundup of land use news snippets, follow-ups and leads.

Correction to Janurary 2001 Insight Column

Feb 1, 2002

Corrections, other, Vol. 17 No. 02 Feb 2002

A story on Page 1 of our January edition about the impact of new state redevelopment laws on the San Jose Redevelopment Agency contained several errors that may have mischaracterized the agency's $350 million bond issue.

Programmatic EIS Not Required for Water Reallocation, Court Rules

Jan 1, 2002

Legal Digest, other, Vol. 17 No. 01 Jan 2002

The Interior Department did not need to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement before proceeding with water transfers in western Nevada, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. The court further held that the EIS which the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service did complete adequately assessed cumulative impacts to groundwater and farming.

Appellate Panel Clear Way for Another El Toro Initiative: Opponents Cannot Contest Title and Summary

Jan 1, 2002

Legal Digest, other, Vol. 17 No. 01 Jan 2002

The Fourth District Court of Appeal has cleared the way for a ballot initiative regarding the future of the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station to appear on the March ballot. The appellate court overturned a trial court ruling that allowed opponents of the initiative to contest the county counsel's title and summary of the initiative prior to the measure qualifying for the ballot.

9th Circuit Rejects Fish & Wildlife's Handling of Incidental Take Permits

Jan 1, 2002

Legal Digest, other, Vol. 17 No. 01 Jan 2002

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reined in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's ability to issue "incidental take statements" under the Endangered Species Act. In a grazing case from Arizona, the court ruled that the Service can prepare the statements only when it is likely that a private landowner's activity will "take" an endangered species. The court also concluded that the Service's preparation of incidental take statements in a variety of grazing permit cases was arbitrary and cap

Santa Monica Landlords Victorious in Security Deposit Regulation Suit

Jan 1, 2002

Legal Digest, other, Vol. 17 No. 01 Jan 2002

Landlords have won a takings case against the City of Santa Monica regarding the city's regulation of tenant deposits. The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that an ordinance requiring landlords to pay tenants 3% interest on security deposits was an unconstitutional taking. Although the city argued, in part, that the amount of money at stake was not enough to damage the landlords, the court said that $2.3 million was at stake, including about $1,500 for one individual plaintiff. "A small

Articles