Reform

Subscribe to Reform via RSS

On January 12, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-4-25 (the “EO”) pursuant to Government Code section 8571, which authorizes the Governor to suspend regulatory statutes during a state of emergency upon determining that strict compliance “would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the effects of the emergency.”  (Gov. Code, § 8571.)  The Governor had previously, on January 7, 2025, proclaimed a State of Emergency to exist in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties due to fire and windstorm conditions.Continue Reading Governor Issues Executive Order N-4-25 Suspending CEQA Review And Coastal Act Permitting Requirements To Facilitate Rapid Rebuilding Of Properties Destroyed Or Damaged By Los Angeles And Ventura County Fires

In a partially published opinion filed October 31, 2024, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 1) held, in light of AB 1307 and the Supreme Court’s decision in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (2024) 16 Cal.5th 43 (”Make UC II”), that noise from residents congregating on a USC-area residential housing project’s rooftop decks “do[es] not constitute a significant environmental effect impeding application of the Class 32 exemption[,]” including through attempted invocation of the unusual-circumstances exception.  West Adams Heritage Association et al. v. City of Los Angeles (Robert Champion at al, Real Parties in Interest) (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 395.  The Court held that reversal was required for another reason, however, as the City failed to determine the project’s consistency with an applicable redevelopment plan, which the City had by ordinance incorporated into its applicable zoning, prior to granting the exemption.  (In the unpublished portion of its opinion, which won’t be further discussed in detail here, the Court also rejected appellants’ CEQA challenges to the infill exemption based on alleged significant traffic safety, historical resources, and cumulative impacts.)Continue Reading Fight On! After Grant and Transfer, Second District Holds Upon Reconsideration that Resident Noise Does Not Preclude CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption for USC Area Housing Development Project; But Also Holds City Must First Find Project Consistent With Redevelopment Plan Incorporated Into Zoning Before Granting Exemption

“It’s like déjà vu all over again.”
Yogi Berra

In a (mostly) published opinion filed October 24, 2024, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 2) affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying a writ petition in a CEQA action challenging the County of Los Angeles’ (County) adoption of a comprehensive update to its North Area Plan (NAP) and Community Standards District (CSD), the general plan and zoning provisions governing the 21,000-acre Santa Monica Mountains North Area, one of County’s “most significant ecological and scenic resources.” The Court rejected a vintner’s attack on the FEIR’s project description based on the legal theory that it was “retroactively render[ed] ‘unstable’” by County’s adoption of zoning containing a complete prohibition of new vineyards in the North Area, whereas the zoning standards described in the EIR merely “heavily regulated” vineyards. John M. Gooden v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (2024) 106 Cal. App. 5th 1. While the opinion undoubtedly reached a correct result, it did so through problematic reasoning; it announced an ostensibly new and subjective standard to be applied on de novo review to certain EIR project description challenges—i.e., those based on an approved project’s “deviation” from the EIR’s project description—that will foreseeably prove problematic in its application in future cases.Continue Reading Down Another CEQA “Rabbit Hole”: Second District Upholds Project Description in Los Angeles County’s EIR For North Area General Plan and Zoning Update Against “Retroactive Instability” Challenge Based On Minor Change In Adopted Zoning Prohibiting New Vineyards; But Applies New Subjective Test De Novo and Outside Established Analytic Framework for Recirculation Challenges

In a published opinion filed October 21, 2024, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 7) reversed a judgment entered after the trial court granted without leave a real party developer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, based on statute of limitations grounds, in a writ of mandate action alleging CEQA and Planning and Zoning Law causes of action and challenging the permit and vesting tentative map approvals for a residential subdivision project.  Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment et al v. County of Los Angeles (Williams Homes, Inc., Real Party in Interest) (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1143.  The Court held that judgment on the pleadings was improper as to the CEQA claim because Government Code section 66499.37, the Subdivision Map Act’s (SMA) statute of limitations requiring filing and service of summons within 90 days in subdivision-related actions, could not completely dispose of that cause of action.  The Court reasoned this was so because most of the claims alleged in that cause of action were “procedural violations” and other claims “unique to CEQA” that could not have been brought under the SMA.  The Second District’s opinion is poorly reasoned and concerning because it appears to diverge from the statute’s plain language, as well as from prior caselaw construing it to have an extremely broad application to any subdivision-related action, and to read into it a new and significant limitation on its reach, essentially making it applicable only to actions attacking a subdivision decision based on legal theories that are or could be brought under the SMA.Continue Reading In Writ Action Attacking Vesting Tentative Map Approval, Second District Holds Plaintiffs’ Failure to Comply With Subdivision Map Act Statute of Limitations’90-Day Service-Of-Summons Requirement Does Not Bar Major “Portion” of CEQA Cause of Action Alleging “Procedural Violations Unique to CEQA” And Other Claims That Could Not Be Brought Under Map Act

Litigation abuse is all too familiar to those engaged in the herculean task of getting new development approved in California.  See, for instance, Jennifer Hernandez’s 2022 report for the Center for Jobs & the Economy, titled “Anti-Housing CEQA Lawsuits Filed in 2020 Challenge Nearly 50% of California’s 100,000 Annual Housing Production” and blogged on here.  Or a 2022 case out of the First District, Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 700 (blogged on here), in which the court lamented the fact that CEQA can “be manipulated to be a formidable tool of obstruction” and concluded with the rather dire observation that “[s]omething is very wrong with this picture.” Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Squashes RICO Lawsuit Seeking Federal Remedy For Abusive and Extortionate CEQA Litigation

“Do not go gentle into that good night.  Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”

– Dylan Thomas

In a published decision filed October 7, 2024, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment rejecting a CEQA challenge to the revised EIR for the State Capitol renovation project based on recent legislation exempting that project from CEQA.  Save Our Capitol! v. Department of General Services (Joint Committee on Rules of the California State Senate and Assembly) (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1237.  This was the Court’s third published appellate decision in the CEQA litigation over the controversial project; see my posts dated January 2 and January 23, 2023 and May 23, 2024, covering the Court’s initial two published decisions finding flaws in the project EIR, and in the trial court’s premature discharge of the remedial writ, and my post dated July 11, 2024 covering the dispositive statutory CEQA exemption enacted through SB 174.Continue Reading Third Time’s the Charm: Third District Crowns State the Winner By Legislative Decree In Third Published CEQA Decision Arising From Capitol Renovation 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

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

“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

In an important published opinion filed February 16, 2024, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. 1) held the San Diego County Board of Supervisors committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion in granting project opponents’ appeals of the Planning Commission’s decision upholding County’s use of the CEQA Guidelines section 15183 exemption for a construction debris and inert materials recycling facility project.  Hilltop Group, Inc., et al v. County of San Diego, et al. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890.  The decision is noteworthy not just as the newest in a series of recent published decisions explicating the application of this important CEQA exemption, but because it sides with and grants a writ remedy to a project developer plaintiff that ultimately prevailed in litigation alleging a lead agency overstepped its legal authority by ordering preparation of an unnecessary EIR for an exempt project.Continue Reading CEQA Remedies Go Both Ways:  Fourth District Reverses Judgment Upholding San Diego County Board’s Decision Granting Project Opponents’ Administrative Appeal, Holds Board Erred In Finding CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Statutory Exemption Inapplicable And Ordering EIR Prepared for Exempt Industrial Project