On May 17, 2020, the California Supreme Court granted review of the First District Court of Appeal’s controversial and much criticized published decision in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 656, which held the University’s long-range campus development plan (LRDP) EIR inadequate, throwing a monkey wrench into its efforts to redevelop and build much-needed student and homeless housing at the historic People’s Park site. (My March 3, 2023 post on the Court of Appeal’s decision can be found here.)Continue Reading California Supreme Court Grants Review In Controversial “People’s Park”/Student Housing CEQA Case
Litigation
No Room At the Table: Second District Upholds Denial of Intervention in CEQA/Coastal Act Litigation Where Nonparties Failed to Make “Compelling Showing of Inadequate Representation”.
By Arthur F. Coon on
In consolidated litigation challenging on CEQA and Coastal Act grounds the Coastal Commission’s amendment of a coastal development permit (CDP) to (among other new use restrictions) completely phase out off-highway vehicle (OHV) use at the apparently inaptly-named Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area (Oceano Dunes), the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 6) affirmed the trial court’s order denying a motion to intervene filed by a number of interested nonparties (the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, Oceano Beach Community Association, and Center for Biological Diversity, or “Appellants”). Friends of Oceano Dunes, et al. v. California Coastal Commission, et al. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 836. In so doing, the Court applied and explained numerous principles governing both motions for intervention as of right and motions for permissive intervention.Continue Reading No Room At the Table: Second District Upholds Denial of Intervention in CEQA/Coastal Act Litigation Where Nonparties Failed to Make “Compelling Showing of Inadequate Representation”.
Slapping Down An Anti-SLAPP: First District Holds Next-Door Neighbor Opponents Of Residential Renovation Project And Related CEQA Compliance In City’s Administrative Proceedings Were Properly Named As Real Parties In Interest In Project Proponent’s Subsequent Mandate Action Challenging City’s Project Denial
In a published opinion filed April 14, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 3) taught some interesting procedural lessons in a CEQA/writ of mandate case arising from the City of San Francisco’s denial of a single-family home renovation project proposed by one Durkin and his LLC (Appellants) that was successfully challenged in the City’s administrative proceedings by a neighboring owner (Kaufman). Christopher Durkin v. City and County of San Francisco, et al. (Philip Kaufman, Real Party in Interest) (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 643.Continue Reading Slapping Down An Anti-SLAPP: First District Holds Next-Door Neighbor Opponents Of Residential Renovation Project And Related CEQA Compliance In City’s Administrative Proceedings Were Properly Named As Real Parties In Interest In Project Proponent’s Subsequent Mandate Action Challenging City’s Project Denial
First District Affirms Judgment Rejecting All CEQA Challenges To Oakland A’s Ballpark Development EIR Except Improper Deferral of Wind Impacts Mitigation
In a 72-page published opinion filed March 30, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 4) affirmed in full the trial court’s judgment, which upheld the EIR for the Oakland Waterfront Ballpark District Project (project) with the sole exception of its wind mitigation measure. East Oakland Stadium Alliance, et al v. City of Oakland, et al (Athletics Investment Group, et al, Real Parties in Interest) (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1226. In doing so, the Court’s lengthy opinion touched on and analyzed numerous interesting and important CEQA topics.Continue Reading First District Affirms Judgment Rejecting All CEQA Challenges To Oakland A’s Ballpark Development EIR Except Improper Deferral of Wind Impacts Mitigation
“Permanent Vacation” In Palm Springs? – Fourth District Holds CEQA’s Short 35-Day Statute of Limitations Does Not Apply Despite City’s Filing of NOE Due To Subsequent Material Change In Street Vacation Project Which Triggered Maximum 180-Day Limitations Period
In a published opinion filed on February 23, 2023, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a judgment of dismissal after the sustaining of a demurrer and held that an amended writ petition challenging a city’s street closure project sufficiently stated claims against the city for Vehicle Code, local ordinance, and CEQA violations. Committee to Relocate Marilyn v. City of Palm Springs (PS Resorts, Real Party in Interest) (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 607. As relevant here, it held the operative petition was not time-barred despite its first alleging CEQA violations more than 35 days after the City’s filing of a Notice of Exemption (“NOE”) because the City subsequently changed its project from a street vacation to an allegedly temporary street closure and Petitioner (the “Committee” or “Petitioner”) filed its amended petition alleging a CEQA claim within 180 days of learning of the change.Continue Reading “Permanent Vacation” In Palm Springs? – Fourth District Holds CEQA’s Short 35-Day Statute of Limitations Does Not Apply Despite City’s Filing of NOE Due To Subsequent Material Change In Street Vacation Project Which Triggered Maximum 180-Day Limitations Period
First District Reverses Judgment In Controversial “People’s Park” CEQA Case, Holds UC Regents’ Program/Project EIR For Long Range Development Plan And Site-Specific Student Housing Project At The Park Failed To Adequately Analyze Alternative Housing Sites, And Student Noise Impacts
In a published opinion filed February 24, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 5) reversed a judgment upholding the adequacy of the EIR for the University of California, Berkeley’s long range campus development plan (“LRDP”) and a controversial housing development project at the historic People’s Park. Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (Resources for Community Development, Real Party in Interest) (2023 88 Cal.App.5th 656. The opinion comes in a case that has been much publicized in popular news media as involving both development of an iconic historic site, currently plagued with crime and homelessness, and treatment of housed college students as presumptive purveyors of “party noise” environmental impacts; it has also (justifiably) resulted in renewed calls for CEQA reform, including from Governor Newsom.Continue Reading First District Reverses Judgment In Controversial “People’s Park” CEQA Case, Holds UC Regents’ Program/Project EIR For Long Range Development Plan And Site-Specific Student Housing Project At The Park Failed To Adequately Analyze Alternative Housing Sites, And Student Noise Impacts
Fourth District Holds Addendum To 2010 Program EIR For Irvine Business Complex Vision Plan Violated CEQA Because Conclusion That Large Infill Project’s GHG Emissions Would Be Less Than Significant Lacked Substantial Evidence And Project Was Not Exempt
In a published opinion filed February 6, 2023, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. 3) affirmed a judgment setting aside an addendum to a 2010 program EIR (PEIR) and accompanying approvals for a 275,000-square foot office complex on a 4.95-acre parcel (the “Gemdale project” or “project”) within the 2,800-acre Irvine Business Complex (IBC). IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine (Gemdale 2400 Barranca Holdings, LLC, Real Party in Interest) (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100. The Court held that the City’s approval of the Addendum was improper because substantial evidence did not support the conclusion that the project’s GHG emissions were within the scope of the PEIR and would have less than significant impacts; further, the project was unusually large and dense due to its utilization of transfers of development rights (TDRs) of over 220,000 square feet – by far the largest ever approved in the IBC’s history – and thus could not qualify for the Class 32 infill exemption due to the unusual circumstances exception.Continue Reading Fourth District Holds Addendum To 2010 Program EIR For Irvine Business Complex Vision Plan Violated CEQA Because Conclusion That Large Infill Project’s GHG Emissions Would Be Less Than Significant Lacked Substantial Evidence And Project Was Not Exempt
Supreme Court Denies Review And Depublishes Troublesome Brown Act/CEQA Exemption Decision
On February 15, 2023, the California Supreme Court denied the petitions for review and issued an order decertifying the Second District Court of Appeal’s controversial (and previously published) opinion in G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 814, rev. den. and depub’d. 2/15/23 (Supreme Ct. Case No. S277439). (My prior posts on this decision and its subsequent procedural history can be accessed by clicking on their following dates: 10/31/22; 12/5/22; and 1/30/23.) Continue Reading Supreme Court Denies Review And Depublishes Troublesome Brown Act/CEQA Exemption Decision
First District Upholds Use of Government Code Section 65457 CEQA Exemption For Downtown Livermore Affordable Housing Project, Roundly Rejects Meritless Arguments of NIMBY Opposition
In an opinion in a much-publicized case, filed December 28, 2022, and later ordered published on January 26, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 3), upheld the City of Livermore’s (“City”) approval of a 130-unit affordable housing project on a downtown infill site and its accompanying determination that the project was CEQA-exempt under Government Code section 65457 (“Section 65457”). (Save Livermore Downtown v. City of Livermore (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1116 (“SLD”).) The important opinion was ordered published based on requests submitted by City, Attorney General Rob Bonta, YIMBY, and the California Building Industry Association.Continue Reading First District Upholds Use of Government Code Section 65457 CEQA Exemption For Downtown Livermore Affordable Housing Project, Roundly Rejects Meritless Arguments of NIMBY Opposition
Third District Adds Brief CEQA Severance Analysis After Rehearing In Save Our Capitol! Case, Limits Its Relief To Allow Capitol Annex Demolition To Go Forward
In an opinion on rehearing filed January 18, 2023, the Third District Court of Appeal reissued its previous published opinion in the Save Our Capitol! case (my January 2, 2023 post on which can be found here) with the addition of a few pages of discussion addressing “Relief” inserted at the end of the majority opinion just before its “Disposition.” Continue Reading Third District Adds Brief CEQA Severance Analysis After Rehearing In Save Our Capitol! Case, Limits Its Relief To Allow Capitol Annex Demolition To Go Forward