Remedies

Subscribe to Remedies via RSS

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  (In the unpublished portion of its opinion, which won’t be further discussed in detail here, the Court also rejected appellants’ CEQA challenges to the infill exemption based on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 an opinion filed August 27 and later ordered published on September 24, 2024, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment denying a writ petition that challenged the State Air Resources Board’s (CARB) adoption of the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation (Regulation) on CEQA and Administrative Procedures Act (APA; Gov. Code, § 11340 et seq) grounds.  California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition v. State Air Resources Board (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 304.  The Court held that CARB’s in-depth study of three alternatives (including the “no project” alternative) constituted a reasonable range for CEQA purposes; it further held that CARB’s alternative analysis wasn’t deficient for rejecting without in-depth study, as infeasible for policy reasons, an alternative proposed by opponents of the Regulation that would have applied a low-NOx vehicle credit to sales mandates applicable to zero-emission vehicles (ZEV).  Based on the same reasoning, the Court held CARB also need not have considered the now-NOx vehicle credit as a mitigation measure for the acknowledged significant near-term air quality impacts of the Regulation.  (The Court also rejected appellant Coalition’s APA arguments in a portion of its opinion that won’t be further discussed in this post.)  Finally, the Court held on CARB’s affirmative appeal that any error with respect to the admission of a specific “white paper” document into the administrative record was nonprejudicial, and therefore harmless, as it did not impact either the trial court’s or its own analysis.Continue Reading Fifth District Affirms Judgment Rejecting CEQA/APA Challenges to CARB’s Approval of ZEV Truck Sales Mandate Regulation; Holds Alternatives and Mitigation Analyses Need Not Include Low-NOx Vehicle Credit Contrary to Project’s Underlying Fundamental Purpose

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 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

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

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

In an opinion originally filed on September 8, and subsequently modified and certified for partial publication on October 4, 2023, the Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment granting a writ setting aside Monterey County’s issuance of a permit to investor-owned public utility/water supplier California-American Water Company (“Cal-Am”) to construct a desalination plant and related facilities needed as one component of Cal-Am’s Water Supply Project.  Marina Coast Water District v. County of Monterey (California-American Water Company, Real Party in Interest) (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 46.  On Cal-Am’s appeal, the Court held the trial court erred in finding the County’s statement of overriding considerations prejudicially inadequate for not addressing the uncertainty created by the City of Marina’s (“City”) denial of a coastal development permit (“CDP”) – later granted with conditions by the Coastal Commission on appeal – for the drilling of intake wells in coastal zone aquifers to supply the plant.  On project opponent Marina Coast Water District’s (“MCWD”) cross-appeal, the Court held that County’s decision not to require a subsequent EIR and its statement of overriding considerations were both supported by substantial evidence and (in an unpublished portion of its opinion not further discussed here) that County’s approval did not violate its own general plan.Continue Reading Sixth District Reverses Writ, Upholds Responsible Agency Monterey County’s Approval of Desalination Plant In Reliance on CPUC’s EIR For Multi-Component, Cross-Jurisdictional Water Supply Project; Court Rejects CEQA Challenges Based On County’s Decision Not to Prepare Subsequent EIR and Allegedly Inadequate Statement of Overriding Considerations

“I fought the law and the law won” – The Crickets

In an opinion filed July 19, and later ordered published on August 16, 2023, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 6) reversed the trial court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in a CEQA action enjoining the Santa Barbara County Road Commissioner from enforcing public laws by removing unpermitted encroachments from a public right-of-way.  Christopher Anderson, et al. v. County of Santa Barbara, et al. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 554. The public officer’s law enforcement actions were held to be exempt from CEQA; to have independent utility apart from any alleged larger, “piecemealed” project evading CEQA review; and not to be subject to the “unusual circumstances” exception to applicable categorical exemptions.  While the Court was careful to fully analyze all of petitioners’ CEQA arguments, its opinion also offered numerous other reasons why the trial court erred and exceeded its lawful authority under applicable legal principles in issuing the preliminary injunction.Continue Reading Second District Reverses Preliminary Injunction, Holds CEQA Cannot Trump Santa Barbara County’s Authority To Remove Unpermitted Encroachments Placed In Public Right-Of-Way By Adjacent Landowners

In a published opinion filed August 14, 2023, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a judgment that denied a petition for writ of mandate challenging the State Department of Public Health’s (Department) approval of Real Party in Interest Harm Reduction Coalition of Santa Cruz County’s (real party) needle exchange program.  Grant Park Neighborhood Association Advocates v. Department of Public Health, et al. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 478.  In ordering a writ to issue to set aside the approval, the Court of Appeal agreed with petitioner and appellant Grant Park’s first three arguments based on the Department’s prejudicial violations of Health and Safety Code § 121349’s required procedures; it declined to reach appellant’s separate CEQA argument seeking the same relief, however, since it had already granted all requested relief under the other statutory provisions.  However – and as most relevant to this blog – the Court also noted that following the trial court’s judgment the Legislature enacted a 2021 statutory amendment exempting the Department’s approval of needle exchange operations from CEQA.Continue Reading Third District Declines To Reach CEQA Exemption Claim In Reversing On Other Grounds Judgment Upholding State Department of Public Health’s Approval of Santa Cruz County Needle Exchange Program But Notes New Statutory CEQA Exemption Now Exists