This week Governor Newsom signed a series of bills intended to accelerate housing development in California. Two bills – AB 2011 and SB 6 – seek to facilitate residential redevelopment of commercially zoned areas, though they contain stringent requirements that may put their benefits out of reach for many developers. AB 2097 largely eliminates local
In County of Butte v. Dep’t of Wat. Resources (2022) 13 Cal.5th 612, issued on August 1, 2022, the California Supreme Court carved out a role for the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) even where the project is largely governed by a federal proceeding. The case arose in connection with the relicensing of the
On April 20, 2022, the Third District Court of Appeal filed its opinion in We Advocate Through Environmental Review v. County of Siskiyou (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 683, reversing the trial court’s judgment upholding the County’s Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for a water bottling facility. The court held that (1) the County’s EIR for the
On May 11, 2022, the Third District Court of Appeal published its opinion in We Advocate Through Environmental Review v. City of Mount Shasta (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 629, reversing the decision below and ordering the trial court to grant a petition for writ of mandate, specifying actions under CEQA that the City of Mt.
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 In unpublished portions of the opinion not further discussed in this summary the Court also held that equitable estoppel did not apply and that substantial evidence supported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
In Almond Alliance of California v. Fish & Game Com. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 337, the Third District Court of Appeal held that the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) did not exceed its statutory authority under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) when the Commission designated four bumble bee species as candidate species for consideration under CESA. In doing so, the Court found that these bees, which are terrestrial invertebrates, fall within the definition of a “fish” for purposes of CESA.