Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Trial court's decision not to interject itself into the still on-going process of preparing an EIR concerning plaintiff-developer's proposal to develop single-housing and commercial structures is affirmed where: 1) developer's contention that the one-year time limit for certifying an EIR established by CEQA section 21151.5 constitutes an iron-clad, one-size-fits-all rule that permits of no exception is rejected; 2) Gov. Code section 65589.5 cannot be used to halt the decision-making process specified by CEQA that is still on-going; and 3) developer's active participation in that process for more than three years, which included numerous changes in the size and composition of the project, after the date it now claims the city lost its discretionary amounts to laches.
Filed December 2, 2009
Opinion by Judge Richman
For Appellant: Bingham McCutchen LLP, Geoffrey L. Robinson, Marie A. Cooper, Sean R. Marciniak
For Appellee: Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson, Julia L. Bond, Edward Grutzmacher; McLaughlin & Hendrickson, Larry McLaughlin