Litigation

Subscribe to Litigation via RSS

A new year often brings fresh perspective.  With 2016 still in its infancy, it is natural to reflect back on what has been and also to contemplate what is yet to come.  The California Supreme Court’s recent CEQA decisions, and its current docket of CEQA cases awaiting decision, provide ample opportunity for both of these basic human impulses.
Continue Reading Supreme Engagement: CEQA’s Continuing Saga In California’s High Court

In a unanimous 24-page opinion authored by newly seated Justice Cuellar and filed December 17, 2015, the California Supreme Court resolved a fundamental issue regarding CEQA’s scope, holding that – with certain specific statutory exceptions – it does not compel what many practitioners have referred to as a “CEQA-in-reverse” analysis. California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, Case No. S213478.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Holds “CEQA-In-Reverse” Is Not The Norm, Reverses And Remands First District’s Judgment In CBIA v. BAAQMD

On November 30, 2015, following a grant and retransfer from the California Supreme Court and reconsideration in light of City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2015) 61 Cal.4th 945, the First District Court of Appeal (Division 3) reissued in slightly modified form its decision in City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (1st Dist., Div. 3 2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833. The partially published opinion reaches essentially the same result, with the same reasoning, as did the Court of Appeal’s initial opinion, which was certified for publication on June 26, 2012. For the case’s facts, procedural history, holdings, and (in my view) most significant analyses, the reader should consult my prior post. (See, “First District Reaffirms CEQA Is Concerned With Physical Impacts On The Environment, Not Economic Ones On Government Services,” by Arthur F. Coon, posted on July 12, 2012.) 
Continue Reading First District Reissues Slightly Modified Opinion on Retransfer From Supreme Court Rejecting Most CEQA Challenges to Cal State East Bay Campus Expansion EIR

In a 5-2 decision filed November 30, 2015, the California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal which had upheld the EIS/EIR for the controversial Newhall Ranch development project. Center For Biological Diversity, et al. v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (The Newhall Land and Farming Company, Real Party in Interest) (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204. The high court approved the EIS/EIR’s methodology analyzing the significance of the project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in terms of reductions from projected “business as usual” (BAU) emissions consistent with AB 32’s statewide reductions mandate, rather than against some absolute numeric limit above the project site’s “baseline” emissions. However, it held the GHG analysis lacked supporting substantial evidence and a cogent explanation correlating the project-specific reductions to AB 32’s mandated state-wide reductions so as to demonstrate consistency with the latter’s goals under the approved methodology. The Court further held the EIS/EIR violated Fish & Game Code § 5515’s prohibition on the taking of “fully protected” fish species by including mitigation measures providing for the collection and relocation by USFWS of the unarmored threespine stickleback. Finally, the Court held – under the particular factual circumstances of the case – that certain issues raised by plaintiffs during an optional public comment period on the Final EIS/EIR were timely raised so as to sufficiently exhaust administrative remedies under Public Resources Code § 21177(a).
Continue Reading Lost in Translation: Supreme Court Elucidates CEQA GHG Analysis, “Fully Protected” Species Take Prohibition, And Issue Exhaustion In Decision Finding Newhall Ranch Development EIR Flawed

In the Spring of last year, I posted an analysis of what I called the Third District Court of Appeal’s “exceptionally thorough and well-reasoned opinion” in Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State of California ex rel 14th District Agricultural Association (3d Dist. 2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 152, rev. gtd. and action deferred 7/9/14. (See, “Third District Construes CEQA Guidelines’ Class 23 Categorical Exemption And “Unusual Circumstances” Exception In Rejecting Challenge To Watsonville Rodeo Event”, by Arthur F. Coon, posted April 7, 2014.) In concluding that post, I noted that the Third District’s position on application of the “unusual circumstances” exception to categorical exemptions was “very clear” and “also diametrically opposed to that taken by the First District in a case in which the California Supreme Court has granted review, and which [had at that time] been pending for almost two years in that Court, Berkeley Hillside Preservation et al. v. City of Berkeley, et al., Case No. S20116.”
Continue Reading Not Its First CEQA Rodeo: Third District Again Upholds Class 23 Categorical Exemption For 2011 Watsonville Rodeo Event On Remand From Supreme Court

When California local governments stretch their resources too far to regulate private conduct and property rights in the name of environmental protection, CEQA can make it quite onerous to undo what has been done. And one can rest assured that if any additional trees might be allowed to “fall in the forest,” CEQA plaintiffs will be close by with their ears peeled to prevent the tragedy. Such are the fundamental philosophical lessons of the Sixth District Court of Appeal’s recently published opinion in Save Our Big Trees v. City of Santa Cruz (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 694, filed on October 23, 2015.
Continue Reading If A Tree Falls In The (Urban) Forest … Does CEQA Apply? Sixth District Holds City Of Santa Cruz’s Amendment Of Tree Protection Ordinance Not Categorically Exempt

On remand following a landmark California Supreme Court decision, the First District Court of Appeal filed its opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment on September 23 and later ordered it published on October 15, 2015. Berkeley Hillside Preservation, et al. v. City of Berkeley (1st Dist., Div. 4, 2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 943. Readers can refer to my previous post for a complete treatment of the case’s facts and the Supreme Court’s rulings. Key aspects and points of the Court of Appeal’s 19-page opinion on remand include:
Continue Reading Berkeley Hillside CEQA Cat Ex Case Redux: Kapors Get Their Mansion, First District’s Belatedly Published Opinion Upholds City’s Decision That “Unusual Circumstances” Exception Does Not Apply

On September 18, 2015, I posted a “Part I” piece on the “efficiency improvements” category of OPR’s Preliminary Discussion Draft of its “Proposed Updates to the CEQA Guidelines” (the “Discussion Draft”). That post can be found here. This follow up post (Part II) covers OPR’s most significant proposals contained in the Discussion Draft’s remaining two categories, i.e., its two proposed “Substance” improvements and its first three proposed “Technical” improvements, but excludes the remaining dozen proposals that OPR classifies as only “minor technical improvements.”
Continue Reading Proposed CEQA Guidelines Amendments: A Critique of OPR’s “Preliminary Discussion Draft” (Part II – Proposed “Substance” and Major “Technical Improvements”)

On September 9, 2015, the California Supreme Court denied review and decertified the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s previously published opinion in Albert Thomas Paulek v. Western Riverside Regional Conservation Authority, which had appeared at 238 Cal.App.4th 583. A discussion of the issues presented by the case and my analyses of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning on them can be found in my post on the originally published opinion. (See “Fourth District Holds Agency’s Removal of Conservation Designation From Land Formerly Protected Under MSHCP Is ‘Project’ Subject to CEQA; Class 7 and 8 Categorical Exemptions for Environmentally Protective Regulatory Actions Do Not Apply,” by Arthur F. Coon, posted July 2, 2015.)

The Supreme Court’s depublication order means that while the decision remains binding on the parties to the case, it will not be citable as precedential authority under California law.Continue Reading Supreme Court Depublishes Lengthy CEQA Categorical Exemption Case

In a published decision filed September 17, 2015, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment granting a writ of mandate and finding that a proposed land exchange agreement was not statutorily exempt from CEQA review. Defend Our Waterfront v. California State Lands Commission, et al (San Francisco Waterfront Partners II, LLC, et al) (1st Dist., Div. 4, 2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 570. The underlying facts are straightforward, as is the Court’s holding interpreting CEQA’s statutory exemption that applies to “settlements of title and boundary problems by the State Lands Commission and to exchanges or leases in connection with those settlements.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080.11.) Perhaps more interesting, however, is the Court’s treatment (partly in dicta) of CEQA’s statutory standing and exhaustion requirements as embodied in Public Resources Code § 21177.
Continue Reading First District Applies CEQA Exhaustion/Standing Rules, Upholds Judgment Rejecting Claim of Statutory Exemption for Controversial State Lands Commission Land Exchange Agreement