Search Results

In a case brought by grocery workers involving a proposed Grocery Outlet in King City, an appellate court has rejected a narrow definition of the infill exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. In particular, the court concluded that other provisions of the CEQA Guidelines defining “infill” do not apply to the so-called Class 32 exemption. Doing so, the court said, would thwart the intent of the CEQA Guidelines The case is an important followup to the landmark Berkeley Hillside case in 2015 and further boxes out project opponents seeking to limit the use of the infill exemption. It was initially unpublished but the Sixth District Court of Appeal recently published the case, meaning it can be used as a precedent in other cases. Best Development proposed a Grocery Outlet store on Broadway in King City, adjacent to Highway 101. The site is almost immediate adjacent to Safeway shopping center. It is surrounded by the freeway, industrial uses, and a cemetery, with residential development a block or two away, though it is also located close to agricultural land. Safeway workers are unionized by the United Food and Commercial Workers. In reviewing the project, King City applied a so-called Class 32 infill exemption, which is available under §15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. The infill exemption, which is being widely used by local governments in California now, can be applied to a site that is less than 5 acres and is “substantially surrounded by urban uses”.

In a bold move, two judge from an influential federal appellate court have ruled that the White House Council on Environmental Quality doesn’t have the legal authority to issue “regulations” implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. A third judge ared from the ruling.

The City of Upland should be able to move forward with renovation of a major park now that an appellate court has upheld the city’s mitigated negative declaration on the project. The appellate court specifically chose not to use the Save Our Capitol! CEQA case to rule against the city.

In a case that could have significant consequences up and down the state, an appellate court has ruled that buildings built after the passage of the 1976 Coastal Act are not entitled to seawalls or other “hard armature” protection from erosion. In reversing a trial court judge’s ruling, the First Distrct Court of Appeal concluded that while the Coastal Commission could issue a permit for a seawall to protect an apartment building built on a bluff in Half Moon Bay in 1972, it could not do so for a neighboring condo complex and coastal trail built in 1984. The ruling puts many projects built after 1976 at risk. The Coastal Act permits seawalls and othe har armature “to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing structures . . . in danger from erosion.” (Public Resources Code § 30235.) The court concluded the word “existing” means existing on the date the Coastal Act went into effect, which was January 1, 1977. Rejecting the reasoning of San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Marie Weiner, the appellate court concluded that allowing the seawall would open the door to a bait-and-switch approach for new projects, through which developers would obtain Coastal Commission approval for a new project and then the Coastal Commission would subsequently be required to allow a seawall. The court said this was not the Legislature’s intent in 1976, adding: “Such an interpretation gives no independent meaning to the term ‘existing,’ rendering it surplusage.” The case involved several developments along a coastal bluff in Half Moon Bay. A four-unit apartment complex was built immediately on the bluff in 1972. Twelve years later, the four-building Casa Mira condominium complex was built slightly further back from the bluff, along with a sewer line and a trail owned and operated by the state Department of Parks & Recreation.

A controversial hotel project adjacent to a tribal casino on coastal bluff in far northern California may or may not move forward after an appellate court found that the Coastal Commission’s review under the did not contain sufficient evidence that fire protection was adequate. Just as important, the appellate court ruled in favor of the Coastal Commission on all other environmental issues, including most significantly the hotel’s visual impact. The hotel is proposed by the Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of Trinidad Rancheria, which owns a nearby casino in the coastal town of Trinidad in Humboldt County. The project was considered a federal project because of a loan and lease requiring approval of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, meaning the project had to be consistent with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The BIA declared the project consistent, but this determination then went before the Coastal Commission because the California Coastal Act is the federally approved coastal plan for California under the CZMA. The tribe originally proposed a 64-foot hotel. The Coastal Commission staff originally recommended that the commission object to the BIA’s consistency determination because of the visual impact, citing Coastal Act §30251, which requires protection of “scenic and visual qualities”. After originally agreeing with the staff, the Coastal Commission then voted to conclude that the project could be consistent with the Coastal Act if the height were reduced to 40 feet.

A conditional use permit in Santa Barbara County has been overturned by an appellate court … because transporting marijuana is illegal under federal law even though the sale and use of marijuana is legal under state law.

Landowners are increasingly trying to find easy ways to split big lots into smaller pieces in order to build more housing. But one property owner in Oakland won’t be able to do that. That’s because the California Supreme Court has reversed a lower court ruling and said that even though a parcel was created in the 19 th Century, it’s not a legal parcel under the Subdivision Map Act. It’s the first major “antiquated subdivision” ruling in almost 20 years. The case involves the property owner’s attempt to establish that an 8,800-square-foot single-family lot in the San Antonio neighborhood of Oakland – which currently has a single-family home first built in 1895 – is actually several lots because the original parcel map was filed prior to the Subdivision Map Act’s passage and the lots existed prior to later Map Act amendments. The property in question is located on East 21 st  St. in Oakland, east of Lake Merritt. The existing home has a large yard, so most likely the property owner is seeking to essentially split the lot to allow additional development.

An appellate court has ruled against a Vista cannabis dispensary’s attempt to knock a competitor out of a coveted position for a permit, saying the second dispensary met all requirements to obtain the permit. The case is unpublished, meaning it cannot be used as precedent.

The state’s challenge to Norwalk’s moratorium on homeless shelters and supportivre housing projects can move forward, a Los Angeles judge has ruled.

In the latest twist over the long-running battle about housing development in the affluent Los Angeles suburb of La Cañada Flintridge, a judge has ordered the city to post a $14 million bond as a condition of appealing a recent ruling.

In approving a hotel project, the City of Clearlake didn’t follow the procedural for tribal consultation laid out in AB 52, an appellate court has ruled. The court overturned a lower court ruling in favor of the city and – in a published decision that can be cited as precedent – clarified the extent to which lead agencies such as Clearlake must follow consultant procedures.

In a major opinion that could unravel implementation of SB 743 throughout the state, an appellate court has ruled that cities and counties can’t assume infill development will automatically lead to lower vehicle miles traveled. The case was published and therefore can be used as precedent around the state.