This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Environmental Law
CEQA
Arena Project

Adriana Gianturco Saltonstall, Bob Blymer, Delphine Cathcart, Kevin Coyle, Ronald H. Emslie, Sarah E. Foster, Christine Hansen, Jeanie Keltner, Helen Maggie O'Mara, J. Bolton Phillips, William Reany, Karen Redman v. City of Sacramento

Published: Nov. 29, 2014 | Result Date: Oct. 10, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 34-2014-80001840-CU-WM-GDS; 34-2014-80001879-CU-WM-GDS Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

Sacramento Superior


Attorneys

Petitioner

Kelly T. Smith
(The Smith Firm)


Respondent

James C. Sanchez
(Office of the Sacramento City Attorney)

Jeffrey Heeren


Facts

Adriana Saltonstall, Bob Blymer, Delphine Cathcart, Kevin Coyle, Ronald Emslie, Sarah Foster, Christine Hansen, Jeanie Keltner, Helen O'Mara, J. Bolton Phillips, William Reany, and Karen Redman sued the City of Sacramento. The Sacramento Coalition for Shared Prosperity also sued the city, and the cases were later deemed related. The lawsuits concerned a new arena that will serve as the new home for the city's professional basketball team, the Sacramento Basketball Holdings LLC, and Sacramento Downtown Arena LLC.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The Arena Project proposed the construction and operation of a new entertainment and sports arena, and construction in the surrounding downtown area. Plaintiffs alleged that the investment group was formed to prevent the city's basketball team from moving away from the city. Plaintiffs alleged that the city violated the California Environmental Quality Act by approving the project before it certified an environmental impact report. Plaintiffs also challenged the constitutionality of Public Resources Code Section 21168.6.6. Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief.

Result

The court denied plaintiffs' requested relief. Next, it entered declaratory relief in favor of the city, and against plaintiffs, on the constitutionality of Public Resources Code Section 21168.6.6.


#86248

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390