Negative Declaration / Mitigated Negative Declaration

Subscribe to Negative Declaration / Mitigated Negative Declaration via RSS

The laudable efforts of the Legislature in adopting “super statutes” such as the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”; Gov. Code, § 65589.5) notwithstanding, housing in California remains a scarce and precious commodity.  The interplay of the HAA with another “super statute” – CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) – also continues to be the subject of interesting and important litigation in which the core objectives and provisions of these two statutory schemes clash and must be reconciled.  The First District Court of Appeal’s mostly published 36-page opinion in Coalition of Pacificans for an Updated Plan v. City Council of the City of Pacifica (2025) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, filed on December 30, 2025, deals with the immediate economic fallout from such a clash; the context of the decision was the parties’ post-judgment battle over attorneys’ fees in a case where the CEQA plaintiff prevailed in challenging the HAA-protected housing development approvals for a small infill project in a physically challenging location.  While the City and housing developer prevailed in their appeal of an adverse fee award, their victory might be short-lived or of limited impact in light of the narrow grounds on which the Court of Appeal reversed, and the significant discretion the trial court still retains in reconsidering the fee award on remand.  Thus, in one of the opinion’s many ironies, the case could actually represent a setback for those seeking to use the protections of the HAA to defend housing projects from being sued, and to protect local agencies and developers from hefty fee awards when such suits are successful.Continue Reading Clash of the “Super Statutes”:  First District Construes HAA’s Statutory Provisions Aimed at Disincentivizing CEQA Challenges to Housing Projects By Curbing Fee Awards

In a published opinion filed March 14, 2025, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 2) reversed the trial court’s judgment upholding a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for a four-story, 75-room hotel/meeting hall/parking lot project on a 2.8-acre parcel in the City of Clearlake (“City”), due to the City’s failure to lawfully conduct a tribal cultural resources consultation with plaintiff and appellant Koi Nation of Northern California as required by AB 52.  Koi Nation of Northern California v. City of Clearlake (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 815.Continue Reading First District Voids Clearlake Hotel Project MND for City’s Failure to Conduct Adequate CEQA AB 52 Tribal Cultural Resources Consultation

On February 20, 2025, Senator Scott Wiener introduced Senate Bill No. 607 (SB 607), a proposed law that is relatively short in text length, but which would engender major CEQA reforms if enacted as currently drafted.  The bill would add three new, and amend two existing, statutory sections of CEQA, as discussed below.Continue Reading Is Robust and Disruptive CEQA Reform Possible?  Senator Scott Wiener Wants to Find Out – His Proposed SB 607 Would Exempt Rezonings Consistent With Approved Housing Elements, Limit The Scope of EIRs for Qualifying “Nearly-Exempt” Projects, and Greatly Strengthen Negative Declarations and Categorical and Statutory Exemptions

In an opinion filed August 15, and modified and certified for publication on September 13, 2024, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. 2) resolved cross-appeals from a judgment granting a limited writ by reversing with directions to deny the writ.  The Court thus found the City of Upland’s (City) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for approvals of a 201,096-square foot parcel-delivery warehouse project legally adequate under CEQA.  Upland Community First v. City of Upland (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1.  In doing so, the Court not only upheld an environmental document (an MND) that is, in general, notoriously difficult to defend under CEQA’s applicable “fair argument” standard of review, but also upheld, as supported by substantial evidence: (1) City’s application of a stringent 3,000 MTCO2 e/year quantitative threshold of significance to the project’s GHG emissions, and (2) City’s determination that the project’s “net-over-baseline” GHC emissions would not exceed that threshold – despite some effort being required to “connect the dots” regarding the record evidence to show the City’s math in reaching that determination.  While ultimately irrelevant to the outcome in their favor, the Court also held that City and the project’s developer (Bridge) forfeited – by failing to timely raise – their alternative argument that the project’s GHG emissions were insignificant based on a different, qualitative “threshold,” i.e., City’s finding that the project was consistent with its Climate Action Plan (UCAP).  Finally, the Court rejected all of project opponent UCF’s appellate challenges to City’s MND based on allegedly faulty traffic and VMT analyses.Continue Reading Fourth District Reverses Judgment Granting Writ and Holds City of Upland’s MND For Warehouse Project Satisfies CEQA; Rejects Arguments That City’s Choice and Application of Quantitative GHG Significance Threshold Lacked Substantial Evidence Support

In a published opinion filed April 14, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 3) taught some interesting procedural lessons in a CEQA/writ of mandate case arising from the City of San Francisco’s denial of a single-family home renovation project proposed by one Durkin and his LLC (Appellants) that was successfully challenged in the City’s administrative proceedings by a neighboring owner (Kaufman).  Christopher Durkin v. City and County of San Francisco, et al. (Philip Kaufman, Real Party in Interest) (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 643.Continue Reading Slapping Down An Anti-SLAPP: First District Holds Next-Door Neighbor Opponents Of Residential Renovation Project And Related CEQA Compliance In City’s Administrative Proceedings Were Properly Named As Real Parties In Interest In Project Proponent’s Subsequent Mandate Action Challenging City’s Project Denial

On January 25, 2023, the California Supreme Court extended to March 3, 2023 its time to grant or deny review of the Second District Court of Appeal’s published opinion in G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 814.  My October 31, 2022 post on the Court of Appeal’s opinion, and my follow-up December 5, 2022 post on its modified opinion on denial of rehearing can be found here and here.Continue Reading Supreme Court Extends Time To Decide Petitions For Review In Brown Act/CEQA Exemption Case; Sonoma County Files Depublication Request And Cal Cities Files Amicus Letter Urging Review

On December 5, 2022, the real party in interest (Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. dba Athens Services) and respondent City of Thousand Oaks both filed petitions for review in the California Supreme Court in G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks (2022) ___ Cal.App.5th ___.  (My recent post on the Second District Court of Appeal’s modified opinion order, which contains a link to my original post on the case, can be found here.)
Continue Reading Petitions for Review Filed In Brown Act/CEQA Exemption Case

The Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 6) has issued a November 22, 2022 Order modifying its opinion and denying rehearing in G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks (2022) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, without changing the judgment.  That case expanded existing law under the Brown Act and CEQA by holding, on an issue of first impression, that a public agency must agendize a staff determination that a project is CEQA-exempt as an item of business for the meeting on project approval.  (My October 31, 2022 post on the case can be found here.)
Continue Reading Second District Denies Rehearing and Modifies Opinion In Brown Act/CEQA Exemption Case; CSAC and Solano County Seek Depublication In Supreme Court

In a published opinion filed October 26, 2022, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 6) appears to have significantly expanded the reach of both the Brown Act and the procedural requirements of CEQA in holding, on an issue of first impression, that a public agency must list its staff’s determination that a project is exempt from CEQA as an item of business on the agenda for the meeting at which it considers the project approval. G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks, et al (Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., Real Party In Interest) (2022) __ Cal.App.5th __. The opinion thus extends San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1167 (“San Joaquin Raptor”), which held that a public agency’s decision to adopt a CEQA document, such as an EIR or negative declaration, must be described as a distinct item of business under the Brown Act when it is to be considered at a public hearing, to the distinct context of CEQA-exempt projects.
Continue Reading Second District Holds Brown Act Requires Lead Agency To List CEQA Exemption As Item of Business On Agenda For Public Meeting When Project Already Found Exempt By Staff Is Considered For Approval

In a partially published opinion filed on November 3, 2021, involving the CEQA review for a bed and breakfast/commercial event project proposed on property within a Yolo County agricultural zone, the Third District Court of Appeal (in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Robie) reaffirmed the basic CEQA principle that a “full EIR” must be prepared whenever a project may have any significant environmental effect; it thus reversed the trial court’s judgment that had allowed a deficient revised Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and its mitigation measures to remain intact while ordering Yolo County to also prepare an EIR limited to addressing only the project’s impacts on three species of concern (tricolored blackbird, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and golden eagle).  The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with instructions to issue a peremptory writ directing the County to set aside its MND approval and to prepare a full EIR instead.  Farmland Protection Alliance v. County of Yolo (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 300.  (In the unpublished portion of its opinion, which won’t be further discussed in this post, the Court of Appeal held the trial court was correct in finding that substantial evidence supported a fair argument that the project may have a significant impact on the beetle, thus requiring an EIR, and also concluded the trial court did not err in upholding the County’s determinations that the project was consistent with the Williamson Act and County’s zoning code.)
Continue Reading Third District Holds CEQA Does Not Authorize “Remedy” of “Limited EIR” To Augment Deficient MND; Rather, Full EIR Must Be Prepared Where Substantial Evidence Supports Fair Argument That Any Aspect Of Project May Have Significant Environmental Effect