Uncategorized

Subscribe to Uncategorized via RSS

In a published opinion filed June 7, 2023, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held the trial court erred in applying California’s interrelated factors test to deny a preliminary injunction in a CEQA case.  The error consisted of failing to consider harm to the public interests in informed decisionmaking and public disclosure as relevant informational harm to be weighed in evaluating the relative balance of harms likely to result from the erroneous granting or denial of the preliminary injunction.  Tulare Lake Canal Company v. Stratford Public Utility District (Sandridge Partners, L.P., et al, Real Parties in Interest) (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 380. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal reversed the order denying the preliminary injunction and remanded the matter to the trial court for reconsideration, while keeping in effect its writ of supersedeas continuing the trial court’s TRO in full force and effect.Continue Reading Fifth District Holds Harm To Public Interest In Informed Decisionmaking Must Be Considered By Court In Deciding Whether To Grant Preliminary Injunction In CEQA Case

In a March 27, 2023 post found here, we wrote about the Second District Court of Appeal’s (Div. 1) decision concerning the Water Code section 13389 CEQA exemption for Regional Water Quality Control Board (“RWQCB”) issuance of waste discharge permits, formerly published as Los Angeles Waterkeeper v. State Water Resources Control Board (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 874.  After the Regional Board and State Board filed a request for modification of that opinion to clarify certain issues, the Court of Appeal vacated it, ordered rehearing, considered supplemental briefing, and filed a new, superseding published opinion in the case on June 2, 2023.Continue Reading Second District “Waters Down” Los Angeles Waterkeeper Waste Discharge Permit CEQA Exemption Opinion After Rehearing At Request Of Water Boards, Narrows And Clarifies Holding With No Change In Judgment Or Result

In consolidated litigation challenging on CEQA and Coastal Act grounds the Coastal Commission’s amendment of a coastal development permit (CDP) to (among other new use restrictions) completely phase out off-highway vehicle (OHV) use at the apparently inaptly-named Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area (Oceano Dunes), the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 6) affirmed the trial court’s order denying a motion to intervene filed by a number of interested nonparties (the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, Oceano Beach Community Association, and Center for Biological Diversity, or “Appellants”). Friends of Oceano Dunes, et al. v. California Coastal Commission, et al. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 836. In so doing, the Court applied and explained numerous principles governing both motions for intervention as of right and motions for permissive intervention.Continue Reading No Room At the Table:  Second District Upholds Denial of Intervention in CEQA/Coastal Act Litigation Where Nonparties Failed to Make “Compelling Showing of Inadequate Representation”.

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

In a published opinion filed March 2, 2023, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that where no governmental approvals were required, an investor-owned public utility was not required to comply with CEQA prior to exercising its eminent domain power by filing an action to condemn a maintenance/access easement in connection with its existing electrical power transmission facilities located on and traversing private property.  Robinson v. Superior Court of Kern County (5th Dist. 2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1144.  While most of the opinion involved eminent domain issues irrelevant to this blog, the pertinent issue here is a simple definitional one:  CEQA applies only to “discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080(a)), and CEQA’s definition of “public agency” includes only state agencies, boards and commissions, and local and regional agencies.  (Pub. Resources Code, § 21063; CEQA Guidelines, § 15379.)Continue Reading CEQA Does Not Apply To Investor-Owned Public Utility’s Exercise Of Power Of Eminent Domain To Acquire Electric Facilities Maintenance Easement

On February 27, 2023, the Second District Court of Appeal (Division One) filed its published decision in Los Angeles Waterkeeper v. State Water Resources Control Board (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 874, a case mainly focused on water law but which also has some significant CEQA implications.  Briefly put, the petitioner in Los Angeles Waterkeeper attempted to bypass a statutory limitation on CEQA review through an action that would, if successful, have resulted in the imposition of additional substantive and procedural environmental review requirements on certain projects for which no EIR is required. As explained below, the Second District rejected this invitation to expand CEQA’s reach.Continue Reading Second District Affirms Judgment Upholding Water Code CEQA Exemption, Rejects Plaintiff’s Attempt To Extend CEQA Review And Findings Requirements To Regional Water Board’s Approval Of Waste Discharge Permits

At its weekly conference held on August 24, 2022, the California Supreme Court acted to modify its recent majority opinion in County of Butte v. Department of Water Resources (State Water Contractors) (2022) 13 Cal.5th 612, Case No. S258574.  In granting the request, made in a letter signed by a number of leading CEQA practitioners, for modification to correct an erroneous statement in its opinion about required topics of EIR discussion (see my 8/19/22 post on counsel’s letter here), the Supreme Court issued an “Order Modifying Opinion” stating:
Continue Reading Supreme Court Corrects Butte County Opinion’s CEQA Misstatement In Response To Counsel’s Letter

An August 12, 2022 letter to the Supreme Court – signed onto by more than a dozen leading CEQA attorneys not representing parties to the action or other clients – has requested the Court to modify its August 1, 2022 majority opinion in County of Butte v. Dept. of Water Resources, Supreme Court Case No. S258574 to correct an error in one of the opinion’s background statements concerning a basic principle of CEQA law.  (The error was pointed out in my August 7, 2022 post on the case, which can be found here.)
Continue Reading Leading CEQA Counsel File Letter Requesting California Supreme Court To Correct Basic Error In Recent Majority Opinion

On June 1, 2022, the Sixth District Court of Appeal, in response to a request for publication, ordered that its previously unpublished May 9, 2022 opinion in Committee for Sound Water and Land Development v. City of Seaside (KB Bakewell Seaside Venture II, LLC, Real Party in Interest) (2022) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ be published.  Matt Henderson’s and my May 20, 2022 post discussing and analyzing the Court’s decision, which is now precedent and can be cited as such, can be found here.
Continue Reading Sixth District Belatedly Orders Published Its Opinion Upholding Constitutionality Of Judicial Council’s Emergency Rule Altering CEQA’s Statutes Of Limitations