Standard of Review

Subscribe to Standard of Review via RSS

In an important opinion filed October 21, and later ordered published on November 18, 2024 (at the request of the California State Association of Counties and the Rural County Representatives of California), the Sixth District Court of Appeal interpreted key terms in the CEQA Guidelines Class 32 categorical exemption, which applies to “in-fill development” projects that meet specified criteria, including being “substantially surrounded by urban uses.”  In doing so, the Court upheld a low-population city’s use of the exemption for a Grocery Outlet project near Highway 101.  Working Families of Monterey County, et al. v. King City Planning Commission (Best Development Group, LLC, Real Party in Interest) (2024) ___ Cal.App.5th ___.Continue Reading Sixth District Affirms Judgment Upholding Application of CEQA Guidelines Class 32 Infill Development Exemption To Project On Parcel Substantially Surrounded By Urban Uses In Small-Population City

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  (In the unpublished portion of its opinion, which won’t be further discussed in detail here, the Court also rejected appellants’ CEQA challenges to the infill exemption based on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

On October 7, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 5) issued a 6-page “Order Denying Respondent’s Petition for Rehearing and Modifying Opinion [No Change in Judgment]” (the “Order”) in Sunflower Alliance v. California Department of Conservation, et al. (Reabold California, LLC) (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1135, a case upholding a CEQA Guidelines Class 1 categorical exemption for an oil well conversion project (my 9/9/24 post on which can be found here).  The main thrust of the Order, a copy of which can be reviewed here, is to bolster the Opinion’s refutations of certain of Respondent Sunflower Alliance’s arguments, including its argument made on rehearing that the Secretary cannot have intended for categorical exemptions to call for an “early stage” assessment of environmental impacts; the Court called Sunflower’s position “wrong,” citing numerous examples of categorical exemptions calling for such assessments, which it noted function as limits on the application of the exemptions, and are also consistent with the agencies’ duty to consider environmental impacts when evidence in their records suggests an exception to the exemption may apply.Continue Reading First District Denies Rehearing, Modifies Opinion in CEQA Guidelines Class 1 Categorical Exemption Case With No Change in Judgment

In a terse opinion filed September 13, and modified and ordered partially published on October 3, 2024, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld an award of reasonable record preparation cots to prevailing lead agency County of Yolo (County) in a CEQA action unsuccessfully challenging a sand and gravel mining permit and reclamation plan (project).  Yolo Land and Water Defense, et al v. County of Yolo, et al (Teichert, Inc., Real Party in Interest) (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 710.Continue Reading Third District Holds That Lead Agency Prevailing In CEQA Action Can Recover Reasonable Record Preparation Costs Despite Petitioner’s Election to Prepare Record

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 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

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

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