Uncategorized

Subscribe to Uncategorized via RSS

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

Lawyers, like all humans, experience the full gamut of life’s difficulties.  Sometimes those intrude into the practice of law itself, up to and including CEQA litigation.  On September 26, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal filed its published its opinion in Friends of the South Fork Gualala v. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 517, a case dealing with such an unfortunate circumstance, in which the Court had to address the conflicting needs of a lawyer confronting a serious mental illness, the needs of the litigants, and the needs of the functioning of the trial court.  Despite its tangential relationship to the substantive or procedural provisions of CEQA, the case is worth reviewing for the guidance it provides practitioners and litigants dealing with such a scenario in the context of a writ proceeding entitled to calendar preference under CEQA. Continue Reading Delay Denied: First District Affirms Trial Court’s Denial of Seventh ADA Continuance Request Made In CEQA Case Under California Rules of Court, Rule 1.100, Due To Burden On Trial Court’s Docket Management And Excessive Delay Contrary To Fundamental Nature of Expedited CEQA Proceeding

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

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 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 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

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 a published opinion filed November 13, 2023, disposing of consolidated appeals, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 6) affirmed judgments denying writ petitions that sought to invalidate a Ventura County ordinance. The ordinance at issue created wildlife migration corridor overlay zones covering approximately 163,000 less-developed acres of the County, including 10,000 acres of classified mineral resources.  California Construction and Industrial Materials Association/Ventura County Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business v. County of Ventura (Los Padres Forestwatch, et al., Interveners and Respondents) (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1. As did the trial court, the Court of Appeal rejected the arguments of appellants – which were coalition groups representing construction, industry, labor, agriculture and business interests – that County’s adoption of the ordinance violated requirements of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (“SMARA”) and CEQA.Continue Reading Second District Holds Ventura County’s Adoption of Ordinance Creating Wildlife Migration Corridor Overlay Zones In County’s Rural Areas Did Not Violate SMARA And Was Properly Determined Categorically Exempt From CEQA