In People ex rel. Bonta v. County of Lake (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222, the First District Court of Appeal held that the Final EIR (“FEIR”) and associated errata for a proposed mixed-use development project, located in a rural part of Lake County, failed to adequately assess the increased risk of human-caused wildfires the project created.
In Save Our Capitol! v. Dept. of Gen Servs. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 828—the third appeal challenging renovations and additions to the State Capitol (Project) under CEQA—the Third District Court of Appeal rejected petitioner’s challenges to the revised EIR for the Project on the grounds that newly enacted Senate Bill No. 174 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) (SB
In Sunflower Alliance v. California Department of Conservation (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 771, the First District Court of Appeal held that a project that would turn an existing oil well into an injection well to pump water back into an aquifer (Project) was exempt from CEQA under the Class 1 exemption for minor alterations to an
In Nassiri v. City of Lafayette (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 910, the First District Court of Appeal (Court) held that a proposed 12-unit condo (Project) in the City of Lafayette (City) was exempt from CEQA because it qualified for the Class 32 Infill Exemption, upholding the trial court’s determination. In doing so, the Court rejected arguments
In Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that plaintiff Hilltop Group, Inc. (“Hilltop”) could proceed with developing a recycling facility, over the objections of community groups and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors (“Board of Supervisors” or “Board”). The proposed North
In Koi Nation of Northern California v. City of Clearlake, the Lake County Superior Court (in a judgment dated December 22, 2023) upheld the City of Clearlake’s (“City”) determination, under the substantial evidence standard, that resources not listed on a historic register failed to qualify as tribal cultural resources (“TCR”). The Court also held
In Yes In My Back Yard v. City of Culver City (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1103, the Second District Court of Appeal (“Court”) held that the City of Culver City (“City”) violated Government Code section 66300 (“Section 66300”)—a part of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, also known as SB 330 (“SB 330”)—when it adopted
In City of San Clemente v. Department of Transportation (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1131, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a homeowner’s association (Association), who challenged a proposed state highway extension alignment and a CEQA settlement that required the highway to avoid sensitive areas, was not entitled to attorney’s fees under the “private attorney
On August 31, 2023, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a final rule listing four distinct population segments (DPSs) of foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The foothill yellow-legged frog lives in streams throughout California and Oregon, but the four DPSs identified are all located
In Tulare Lake Canal Company v. Stratford Public Utility District (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 380, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a trial court order denying a preliminary injunction to halt the construction of a water pipeline through an easement granted by the Stratford Public Utilities District (SPUD) without first undergoing environmental review.