In E. Oakland Stadium Alliance v. City of Oakland (Mar. 30, 2023, No. A166221) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 240], the First District Court of Appeal concluded that the EIR prepared for the proposed Oakland A’s stadium was largely satisfactory, but on a single point failed to adequately mitigate wind impacts.
The Oakland Waterfront Ballpark
In Arcadians for Environmental Preservation v. City of Arcadia (Feb. 16, 2023, No. B320586) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 103] the Second District Court of Appeal found no error in a trial court ruling that there had been a failure to exhaust administrative remedies where project opponents merely raised general environmental objections without identifying any
In a partially published opinion in Save Lafayette v. City of Lafayette (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 842, the First District Court of Appeal upheld approval of an affordable housing project in the face of the third in a series of lawsuits filed by a citizens group against it. The Court held that the applicant could resume
In County of Mono v. City of Los Angeles (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 657, the First District Court of Appeal held that a reduction in water deliveries by the City of Los Angeles (City) to lessees in Mono County (County) was not a new CEQA project, but was within the scope of existing leases.
In 2010
In YIMBY v. City of Los Angeles (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2022, No. 21STCP03883), a Los Angeles County trial court decided a number of issues under California housing laws. Though the trial court decision carries neither precedential nor persuasive value, it may portend the direction in which courts will interpret these relatively new laws. In
In Reznitskiy v. County of Marin (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1016, the First District held that the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5 (HAA), does not apply to a project consisting of one individual residential unit. In unpublished portions of the opinion not further discussed in this summary the Court also held that equitable estoppel did not apply and that substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination.
The HAA is a statute designed to increase the approval and construction of new housing. It provides a number of benefits to “housing development projects,” including prohibiting an agency from disapproving such a project on the basis of any standard that is not objective.
In Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 700, the First District Court of Appeal considered the adequacy of an EIR certified by Marin County (County) for a residential development. The Court rejected a number of arguments raised by opponents, most prominently the argument that the EIR erred in recognizing limits
In Department of Water Resources Environmental Impact Cases (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 556, the Third District Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying motions for attorney’s fees arising out of the voluntary dismissal of coordinated petitions following project changes and decertification of the challenged EIR under pressure from Governor Newsom.
The Department of Water Resources (DWR) initially proposed two tunnels to convey fresh water from the Sacramento River to pumping stations in the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta (Project). Lawsuits were brought by a number of organizations (Plaintiffs) challenging the Project. The suits were coordinated at the trial court level. While the coordinated proceeding was pending, newly elected Governor Newsom announced that he did not support the dual-tunnel proposal, and directed DWR to pursue a single-tunnel conveyance instead. DWR decertified its EIR and rescinded its Project approvals, and the various lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed.
In Committee for Sound Water & Land Development v. City of Seaside (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 389, the Sixth District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s finding that a CEQA challenge to a proposal to develop a large “Mixed-Use Urban Village” on the former Fort Ord military base (Project) was time-barred. The Court also found
On March 3, 2022 the California Supreme Court denied UC Berkeley’s (UC’s) request to stay enforcement of a trial court order capping its enrollment for the upcoming year. The denial is the latest development in ongoing CEQA litigation filed by Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods (SBN) over the UC’s enrollment levels (see TLG’s coverage of related cases