Three recent cases show how far the law can be stretched -- and how project opponents often sue for reasons that have nothing to do with that they're really upset about.
A dispute from the Livermore area suggests that general plan designations and zoning ordinances have not kept pace with renewable energy advances -- leading to interpretation disputes. In Livermore, the courts have sided with public agency interpretations and against environmentalists opposed to a solar project.
In the wake of the pandemic, some California downtowns are stronger than ever. Others resemble the walking dead. Both scenarios have inspired planners to get creative.
As in other cities, Redondo claims it "self-certified" its housing element, thus protecting it from a builder's remedy claim. The developer of the city's former beachfront power plant claims HCD approval was required.
When a court told the City of San Diego to engage in more CEQA review, the city abandoned the project. Then the plaintiff tried to get the city to conduct the review anyway -- but an appellate court overruled her.
Montecito homeowners said Santa Barbara County couldn't enforce its encroachment law because the county had to go through a CEQA process. An appellate court said the homeowners who blocked parking spaces on their road were the lawbreakers, not the county.
In an unpublished ruling, appellate court uses "noisy Berkeley students" precedent to rule that human noise could be a significant impact under CEQA, thus killing infill exemption for project near USC.
The affluent San Gabriel Valley city has asserted that late passage of its housing element might protect the city from the builder's remedy, even without HCD approval (which could come soon). But a pending project may be permitted to move forward.
California Supreme Court concludes that localities may regulate the location of oil drilling, but the allowable methods must be determined by the Department of Conservation.
