A hotel owner brought a lawsuit against a county transportation authority and a general contractor for nuisance and inverse condemnation alleging that the construction of an underground subway line disrupted the operation of the hotel and caused various problems, such as noise and dust, which interfered with the use and enjoyment of the property and resulted in monetary damages.

A court of appeal has denied CEQA challenges to the EIR for an apartment project, holding that analysis of biological impacts need not be based on surveys conducted in the same year the city issued its notice of preparation of the EIR. Save North Petaluma River and Wetlands v. City of Petaluma, 86 Cal.App.5th 207 (2022).

The EIR for a residential project has been struck down because its discussion of project alternatives did not analyze the possibility that public funds might be used to acquire the land for open space. Save the Hill Group v. City of Livermore, 76 Cal. App. 5th 1092 (2022).

A SUMMARY OF PUBLISHED APPELLATE OPINIONS UNDER THE 

Update: On January 18, 2023, the Third District Court of Appeal issued a revised opinion on rehearing, ordering partial decertification of the EIR and allowing certain construction activities to proceed during remand (see "Partial Decertification & Severance" below.)

The First District Court of Appeal overturned the City of San Francisco's decision that Saint Ignatius High School's project to install four permanent 90-foot-tall athletic field lights was exempt from CEQA. Saint Ignatius Neighborhood Association v. City and County of San Francisco, 85 Cal.App 5th (2022).

The court of appeal held that an attorney's actions in filing and prosecuting a meritless challenge to construction of a single-family home supported a claim for malicious prosecution. Jenkins v. Brandt-Hawley, No A162852 (1st Dist., Dec 28, 2022).

A suit seeking to set aside land-use approvals based on an alleged bribery scheme in violation of the Political Reform Act was subject to the 90-day statute of limitations for actions challenging land-use decisions. AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. City of Los Angeles, No. B311144 (2nd Dist., Dec. 14, 2022).

On February 15, 2023, the California Supreme Court issued an order depublishing this decision. While still binding on the parties to the case, the decision can no longer be cited or relied on as authority.

Under the Housing Accountability Act, a proposed residential development should be evaluated under the land-use standards that applied when the original application was deemed complete, not those at the time of the final decision on the project. Save Lafayette v. City of Lafayette, 85 Cal.App.5th 842 (2022).

The City did not abuse its discretion in finding a residential project to be consistent with the City's development standards since the project qualified for exemption from those standards under the Density Bonus Law. Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego 74 Cal. App. 5th 755 (2022).

A traffic mitigation fee required for construction of a single-family home did not amount to an "unconstitutional condition" in violation of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the County complied with the Mitigation Fee Act in assessing the fee. Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, No. C093682 (4th Dist., Oct 19, 2022).

­­The Ninth Circuit held that statutory language defining the scope of operations of Twitchell Dam was sufficiently broad to potentially include releases of water to facilitate migration of Southern California Steelhead to the ocean. San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper v. Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District, No. 21-55479 (9th Cir., Sept. 23, 2022).

In what has become a near-annual ritual, California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed into law a large package of bills aimed at addressing the state's glaring housing shortage.