In a published decision filed September 6, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 5) reversed the trial court’s judgment granting a writ of mandate and upheld the use of CEQA’s Class 1 categorical exemption (CEQA Guidelines, § 15301) by the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Geologic Energy Management (“CalGEM”) in approving a project to convert an oil well that previously pumped oil and water from a deep aquifer into an injection well that would pump excess water produced from oil extraction back into that aquifer. Sunflower Alliance v. California Department of Conservation, et al. (Reabold California, LLC, Real Party in Interest) (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1135. Because the project involved only minor physical alterations to the well, and the factual record showed the environmental risks from the well’s changed use – i.e., injecting water into the aquifer instead of pumping it out – were negligible, the project fell within the exemption. Continue Reading First District Holds CEQA Class 1 Categorical Exemption Applies To Approval of Project Converting Existing Oil Well Into Produced-Water Injection Well Because Changed Use Presents “Negligible” Risk of Environmental Harm
Second District Rejects CEQA Challenges To LA City Planning Commission’s EIR Certification and Categorical Exemption Determination For Multi-Component Project Implementing Westside Mobility Plan, Declines To Reach Significant Issues Forfeited By Appellant
In an opinion filed on July 24, and later ordered published on August 19, 2024, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 4) affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying a writ petition challenging actions taken by the Los Angeles City Planning Commission (“CPC”) to facilitate and implement three components of the Westside Mobility Plan (the “Mobility Plan”). Westside Los Angeles Neighbors Network v. City of Los Angeles (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 223.Continue Reading Second District Rejects CEQA Challenges To LA City Planning Commission’s EIR Certification and Categorical Exemption Determination For Multi-Component Project Implementing Westside Mobility Plan, Declines To Reach Significant Issues Forfeited By Appellant
Timing Remains Everything: Sixth District Holds CEQA Notice of Determination Filed Before County’s Final Project Approval Decision Does Not Trigger Short Limitations Period
The Sixth District Court of Appeal filed on July 24, and later certified for publication on August 6, 2024, its opinion in Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. County of San Benito, et al. (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 22. The case involves the application of CEQA’s short 30-day statute of limitations for challenging an EIR’s sufficiency in the context of multiple CEQA lawsuits brought against a multi-use “roadside attraction” project in San Benito County. Continue Reading Timing Remains Everything: Sixth District Holds CEQA Notice of Determination Filed Before County’s Final Project Approval Decision Does Not Trigger Short Limitations Period
First District Affirms Judgment Rejecting Challenge to CEQA Guidelines Class 32 Infill Development Exemption for 12-Unit Residential Condominium Project
In an opinion filed June 27, and later ordered published (with slight modifications) on July 18, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying a writ petition challenging the City of Lafayette’s use of the CEQA Guidelines section 15332 categorical exemption and related approval of a 12-unit residential condominium project on a 0.3-acre parcel. Nahid Nassiri v. City of Lafayette, et al (3721 Land LLC, Real Party in Interest) (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 910. In disposing of appellant’s arguments that the infill exemption’s elements were not satisfied, the Court of Appeal held that substantial evidence supported the City’s findings that the project site had no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, and that the project would not result in significant air quality impacts. The Court declined to reach the issue whether the unusual circumstances exception to the categorical exemption applied because appellant waived it by failing to properly raise it in the trial court.Continue Reading First District Affirms Judgment Rejecting Challenge to CEQA Guidelines Class 32 Infill Development Exemption for 12-Unit Residential Condominium Project
Budget Trailer Bill SB 174 Exempts State Capitol Renovation Project From CEQA, Extends Existing Statutory Exemption for Wildlife/Habitat Protection Projects
It’s good to be king and have your own way
Get a feeling of peace at the end of the day
“It’s Good to be King” – Tom Petty
California Senate Bill No. 174 (SB 174), a budget trailer bill that was passed by the Assembly with amendments on June 26, received Senate concurrence on the amendments the same day, and was enrolled and presented to the Governor the next day (June 27); SB 174 was approved by the Governor on July 2, 2024. The new law does two noteworthy things relating to CEQA.Continue Reading Budget Trailer Bill SB 174 Exempts State Capitol Renovation Project From CEQA, Extends Existing Statutory Exemption for Wildlife/Habitat Protection Projects
Supreme Court Holds Legislature’s Case-Driven CEQA Amendments Require Judgment Upholding UC Berkeley’s 2021 Long-Range Development Plan EIR and People’s Park Housing Project Against Claims of Failures to Analyze Student “Social Noise” and Alternative Locations
“It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” Yogi Berra and Lenny Kravitz
In a unanimous opinion filed on June 6, 2024, the California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the First District Court of Appeal in the controversial “People’s Park” case, thus upholding the Regents’ 2021 Long-Range Development Plan (LRDP) EIR and clearing the legal path for UC Berkeley’s residential development at the People’s Park site. Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (2024) 16 Cal.5th 43. (My prior posts on the Court of Appeal’s decision and the Supreme Court’s grant of review in this case can be found here (3/3/23 post) and here (5/21/23 post).)Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds Legislature’s Case-Driven CEQA Amendments Require Judgment Upholding UC Berkeley’s 2021 Long-Range Development Plan EIR and People’s Park Housing Project Against Claims of Failures to Analyze Student “Social Noise” and Alternative Locations
Third District Reverses Order Prematurely Discharging CEQA Writ for Failure to Address Objections That Certified Revised EIR Was Still Noncompliant, Holds Project Opponents Could Properly Opt to Raise Challenge Through Objections to Return Without Filing Separate Action
In an opinion filed April 18, and belatedly ordered published on May 15, 2024, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order discharging the peremptory writ of mandate that was issued following the Court of Appeal’s earlier direction in Save Our Capitol! v. Department of General Services (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 655, 711 (a case previously analyzed in my blog posts of January 2, 2023, found here, and January 23, 2023, found here). This latest chapter in the CEQA litigation over California’s efforts to update its historic State Capitol Complex centers on the issue whether the trial court properly discharged the writ upon the Department of General Services (“DGS”) simply filing a return showing it had certified a revised EIR, or whether, in response to a petitioner’s objections to the return’s adequacy, DGS needed to further demonstrate that its revised EIR actually fixed the deficiencies identified in the appellate opinion.Continue Reading Third District Reverses Order Prematurely Discharging CEQA Writ for Failure to Address Objections That Certified Revised EIR Was Still Noncompliant, Holds Project Opponents Could Properly Opt to Raise Challenge Through Objections to Return Without Filing Separate Action
Recent Judicial Developments in CEQA Exemptions and Streamlining
Miller Starr Regalia’s developer clients are always keenly interested in efficient and defensible CEQA compliance, which entails effective utilization of legislative and regulatory exemptions and streamlining options where the same are available for particular projects. My partner, Carolyn Nelson Rowan, the incoming Editor-in-Chief of the Miller & Starr California Real Estate 4th treatise, and I took a detailed look at recent judicial application of the statutory CEQA exemption implemented by CEQA Guidelines §15183, which can provide either a complete exemption or streamlining benefits for projects consistent with the development density/intensity established by existing community plans or zoning policies reviewed by a prior EIR. Our article on the same, “Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego: Throwing a Judicial Monkey Wrench Into the Spin Cycle of Local Agency CEQA Laundering?” was published in the May 2024 issue of the Miller & Starr Real Estate Newsalert, and can be found here.Continue Reading Recent Judicial Developments in CEQA Exemptions and Streamlining
First District Holds CEQA Challenge To Shooting Range Project On City-Owned Land In Unincorporated County Was Not Mooted By Project’s Construction During Trial Court Proceedings Despite Petitioner’s Failure To Seek Preliminary Injunction
In a partially published opinion filed March 29, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 4) rejected contentions that the pre-judgment completion of construction of a shooting range mooted a CEQA challenge to the project; it held an effective remedy in the form of various mitigation measures alleged in the CEQA petition remained available and reversed the trial court’s judgment entered in favor of respondents and real party after sustaining their demurrers and granting their motions to strike and for judgment on the pleadings. In addition to applying established mootness principles, the Court resolved a number of other issues in holding petitioner Vichy Springs Resort, Inc. (“Vichy”) had sufficiently alleged a CEQA claim at the pleadings stage against both the City of Ukiah (“City”) and the County of Mendocino (“County”) in a unique factual and legal context presenting novel issues of land use regulatory authority and intergovernmental immunity. Vichy Springs Resort, Inc. v. City of Ukiah, et al. (Ukiah Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc., Real Party in Interest) (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 46.Continue Reading First District Holds CEQA Challenge To Shooting Range Project On City-Owned Land In Unincorporated County Was Not Mooted By Project’s Construction During Trial Court Proceedings Despite Petitioner’s Failure To Seek Preliminary Injunction
Fifth District Clarifies That Agricultural Conservation Easements (ACE’s) Qualify As Legally Permissible “Compensatory Mitigation” For Agricultural-Land Conversion Impacts Under CEQA Despite Not Ensuring No Net Loss
In a partially published (but mostly unpublished) opinion filed on March 7, 2024, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment and writ-discharge order which had upheld Kern County’s most recently revised “streamlined permitting” ordinance for oil and gas wells and its associated CEQA review. V Lions Farming, LLC v. County of Kern, et al. (California Independent Petroleum Association, et al., Real Parties) (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 412. The Court of Appeal instead directed entry of a judgment and writ setting aside the County’s revised ordinance and related certification of a revised supplemental recirculated EIR (SREIR) and addendum. It held (in unpublished portions of its opinion) that the SREIR’s discussion of cancer risk from the potential drilling of multiple wells near a sensitive receptor was informationally deficient, and that the County also erred in analyzing the significance of lowering groundwater levels in wells by misconstruing CEQA to prohibit consideration of the social and economic impacts on disadvantaged communities in making that significance determination. (These and other unpublished portions of the opinion will not be discussed in any further detail in this post.)Continue Reading Fifth District Clarifies That Agricultural Conservation Easements (ACE’s) Qualify As Legally Permissible “Compensatory Mitigation” For Agricultural-Land Conversion Impacts Under CEQA Despite Not Ensuring No Net Loss