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
Samuel D. Bacal-Graves
Sam Bacal-Graves helps public and private clients navigate complex land use and environmental issues. He aids developers and agencies with a wide range of legal issues, utilizing his knowledge of CEQA, California’s housing laws, and other planning and environmental laws. (Read more...)
Discretionary Reductions in Water Deliveries Allowed Under Terms of Existing Leases are not a New CEQA Project
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…
Trial Court Decision Indicates that Housing Must be Permitted at General Plan Density, Regardless of More Restrictive Zoning
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…
Housing Accountability Act Only Applies to Multi-Unit Residential Projects
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 In unpublished portions of the opinion not further discussed in this summary the Court also held that equitable…
CEQA Lawsuit, Latest in Decades of Local Opposition Delaying Marin County Housing Development, Met with Judicial Rebuke: “Something is very wrong with this picture”
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…
Trial Court Failed to Take Catalytic Effect of CEQA Lawsuit into Account When Denying Petitioners Attorney’s Fees Following Voluntary Dismissal
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…
Emergency Pandemic Tolling no Excuse for Untimely CEQA Suit; Petitioner’s Attempts to Evade Procedural Dismissal Unsuccessful
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…
Supreme Court Declines to Stay Court-Imposed Enrollment Cap at UC Berkeley
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…
Approval with Density Bonus Concession Upheld for Residential Tower Adjacent to Balboa Park; Housing Accountability Act Renders Subjective Development Standards Inapplicable
In Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, the Fourth District Court of Appeal considered arguments that a residential development including affordable housing in San Diego (City) was inconsistent with a number of land use plan policies. The Court held that the Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915…
Ninth Circuit Holds That a Project’s NEPA Analysis Need Not Explain Why Its Impact Significance Conclusions Differ from CEQA Analysis of the Same Project; Dissent Perceives Environmental Racism at Work
In Ctr. for Cmty. Action & Envtl. Justice v. FAA (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2021, Nos. 20-70272, 20-70464) ___F.3d___ [2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 34541], the 9th Circuit held that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not require an agency to explain why its impact conclusions differed from CEQA analysis of the same project, nor…