In Yolo Land and Water Defense v. the County of Yolo (2024 105 Cal.App.5th 710, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the County’s EIR for a sand and gravel mine, known as the Teichert Shifler Mining and Reclamation Project. Downey Brand attorneys Andrew Skanchy and Sam Bacal-Graves successfully represented the County in this litigation
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 Relevant Grp., LLC v. Nourmand (9th Cir. Sep. 5, 2024, No. 23-55574) 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 22559, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed the applicability of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) in addressing abuse of CEQA by business competitors. Despite recognizing that the facts suggested the CEQA suits had been
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 Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale (2024) 16 Cal.5th 643 (“Meinhardt”), the California Supreme Court resolved a split in authorities over a procedural matter that will give CEQA litigants some certainty about when an appeal must be filed.
When a party loses their case in a California superior court they are entitled to
An empty basketball court fills a corner of People’s Park in Berkeley, Calif. on April 18, 2018. (Courtesy of UC-Berkeley)
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
On March 29, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal issued its partially published opinion in the case of Vichy Springs Resort, Inc. v. City of Ukiah (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 46. In the published portion of the case, the Court held that the completion of a project to reconstruct a gun range (“Project”)
In a highly-anticipated case revolving around development impact fees, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 144 S.Ct. 893 (2024) that legislatively-imposed conditions on building permits are not exempt from scrutiny. Although the decision can certainly be characterized as a victory for those facing sometimes exorbitant impact fees
In Move Eden Housing v. City of Livermore (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 263, the First District Court of Appeal overturned the trial court and held that the City of Livermore (City) City Clerk was required to process a referendum challenging the decision by the City to enter into a development agreement (Project) with Eden Housing, Inc.