September 2011

In Tafti v. County of Tulare (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 891, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District held that a local enforcement agency violated the due process rights of a property owner when it failed to provide adequate notice of the nature of an administrative appeal hearing, where an administrative law judge recalculated a civil penalty in the amount of $1,148,200, and where the penalty amount stated in the original enforcement order that the owner appealed from was $137,778. The enforcement order’s description of the appeal rights gave the misleading notion that the hearing, if requested, would be limited to the factual issues set forth in the enforcement order; and nothing in the order alerted the owner to the fact that if he requested a hearing, it would reopen the civil penalty issue and allow the administrative judge to determine anew, without any limitation to the amount set forth in the enforcement order, the total assessment of civil penalties.
Continue Reading Property Owner Hit With $137,778 Civil Penalty, Appeals, And (Without Adequate Notice) Ends Up A $1,148,200 Penalty! Court Reverses for Lack of Due Process.

This case involved the perfect storm of events resulting in the flooding of the plaintiffs’ properties. Plaintiffs sued the county in court claiming that the flooding was a result of county’s actions and constituted a taking. The appellate court disagreed and found in favor of the county.
Continue Reading A Series of Unfortunate Events… That are Not Compensable under Inverse Condemnation

On September 16, 2011the Attorney General submitted a letter commenting on the draft EIR for SANDAG’s Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy stating the draft inadequately addressed local air pollution and is inconsistent with the State’s climate change goals.
Continue Reading Attorney General Comments on Draft EIR for First SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy

Register Now! ~ Only $35

Two Locations to Choose From

November 9, 2011 – Lodi, CA and November 17, 2011 – Plymouth, CA

This seminar will guide winery and vineyard owners and operators through cost-effective strategies to address current environmental, legal and technical challenges.

More information, tentative agenda and registration click here.

In this case, the water district imposed a rate structure whereby “irrigation only” users paid disproportionately higher rates for the same amount of water use. The water district asserted that this was permitted under Article X section 2 of the Constitution, which promoted water conservation and allowed, through statute, allocation-based water rates. The appellate court disagreed that Article X section 2 gave the district a “pass” from the requirement in Proposition 218 that fees shall not exceed the proportional cost of providing the service. Therefore, the court held that the disproportionate rate structure was invalid.
Continue Reading Water Conservation Does Not Trump Proportionality Requirement of Prop 218