School and university planning
When deciding whether to award a public litigant its attorneys’ fees against another public entity under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the trial court may only consider the public litigant’s “pecuniary interests and the pecuniary interests of its constituents” in determining the third requirement of that statute. The court may not consider the nonpecuniary motives of the public litigant in bringing the lawsuit.
California State University East Bay undertook a dual-purpose environmental impact report for its campus master plan and two construction projects, meant to enable the campus to grow from roughly 12,000 to 18,000 students in the next 30 years. The construction projects consisted of a housing complex and a parking structure. The EIR included alternatives at both the master plan and construction project level.
The trials of Sisyphus are apt metaphors for that moment in the California Environmental Quality Act review process wherein parties believe they have reached the summit but in fact discover themselves at the bottom of the hill, only to repeat their past efforts.
A working-class neighborhood north of downtown L.A. is slated for a development project unlike any other previously built in the state: A combination of housing and a public school on a shared site. Set to start construction this winter, the Glassell Park project is being built jointly by Los Angeles Unified School District and Abode Communities, the nonprofit homebuilder formerly known as Los Angeles Design Center.
The Second District Court of Appeal has ruled that a lower court erroneously rejected an injunction requested by a community group that is seeking to prevent construction of a new school in Los Angeles’s Echo Park area.
State bond money and local tax dollars are flowing into new school construction at record rates, and school officials are learning that a “green” campus is both better for students and teachers and is less expensive to operate.
Some of the most intense growth battles of the last 20 years have involved development of classrooms, laboratories, housing and other facilities by the University of California (UC). Local government representatives and residents in Davis, Berkeley, Santa Barbara County and elsewhere have complained that UC shoves development down their throats without considering local impacts or desires.