The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued an opinion finding that legislatively enacted impact fees are not exempt from the “takings” analysis required by Nollan and Dolan. Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California. The owners of property in the
What the Sheetz: Where California Development Impact Fees Stand Following Recent Supreme Court Decision
Undoubtedly, development impact fees (DIFs)[1] can make or break the pro forma of any development project. Until this month, developers hoping to challenge the assessment of project-related DIFs were often limited in the causes of action that could be
Supreme Court Rules Legislatively Adopted Exactions Not Exempt From Nollan/Dolan Scrutiny
In a dispute over a traffic impact fee imposed on a residential building permit by El Dorado County, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the long-standing position of California and other state courts that the Takings Clause of the U.S.
Traffic Mitigation Fee Did Not Violate the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine Under Nolan and Dolan
A traffic mitigation fee required for construction of a single-family home did not amount to an “unconstitutional condition” in violation of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the County complied with the Mitigation Fee Act in assessing the
Third Appellate District Upholds EIR for El Dorado Irrigation District’s Upper Main Ditch Piping Project
In Save El Dorado Canal v. El Dorado Irrigation Dist. (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2022), the Third District Court of Appeal upheld El Dorado Irrigation District’s decision to certify an environmental impact report (EIR) for and approve the Upper
Third District Rejects CEQA Challenges To El Dorado Irrigation District Ditch Piping Project, Holds EIR’s Project Description And Analysis Of Potential Hydrology, Biological Resources, and Wildfire Impacts Were Adequate
In an opinion filed January 28, and later certified for publication on February 16, 2022, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate that challenged on CEQA grounds the El Dorado Irrigation
Mandate to Provide Traffic Improvements Prior to Project Approval Struck Down
In Alliance for Responsible Planning v. Taylor, the Third District Court of Appeal recently struck down a voter initiative requiring a developer to fund all cumulative traffic mitigation as a condition precedent to project approval as an unconstitutional taking.
Evidence About Existing Wildfire Hazards Near a Project Does Not Require an EIR
Evidence about past wildfires and the risk of future wildfires impacting residents near a proposed project does not require the lead agency to prepare an environmental impact report unless there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project
Flunking CEQA’s “Fair Argument” Test: Third District Affirms Judgment Upholding MND for El Dorado County Bridge Replacement Project, Rejects Arguments Based on Alleged Significant Impacts on Fire Evacuation Routes During Construction As Insufficient To Require EIR
In a partially published unanimous opinion filed June 16, 2021, authored by a jurist who is also a noted CEQA expert (Acting Presiding Justice Ronald Robie), the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying a writ
County’s Initiative-Enacted General Plan Traffic Mitigation Policies Are Unconstitutional Exactions
On May 4, 2021, in Alliance for Responsible Planning v. Taylor (County of El Dorado), __ Cal.App.5th __ (2021) (Case No. C085712), the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court decision invalidating as a violation of the unconstitutional