Thomas Law Group is pleased to announce that it is merging with Downey Brand, a leading full-service law firm highly regarded for its expertise in natural resources, water, energy, land use, and environmental matters (in addition to litigation and corporate law) effective January 1, 2023. Joining Downey Brand’s Sacramento office will be veteran attorney and
Court Finds Bumble Bees Fit within Statutory Definition of a “Fish;” All Invertebrates Eligible for Listing under California Endangered Species Act
In Almond Alliance of California v. Fish & Game Com. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 337, the Third District Court of Appeal held that the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) did not exceed its statutory authority under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) when the Commission designated four bumble bee species as candidate species for consideration under CESA. In doing so, the Court found that these bees, which are terrestrial invertebrates, fall within the definition of a “fish” for purposes of CESA.
Fourth District Court of Appeal finds Class 32 Exemption’s Massing Criterion Based on Project Size, not Site Size; Rejects Applicability of the Unusual Circumstances Exception
In Protect Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 951, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s determination that the Class 32 infill categorical exemption was properly applied to a project which would redevelop a portion of a shopping center in the City of Tustin (City) and rejected the application
Fifth District Court of Appeal Finds Petitioner Failed to Exhaust Remedies in CUP Approval Challenge, Despite Ambiguous Administrative Appeal Procedures
In Muskan Foods & Fuel v. City of Fresno (2021) (Sep. 27, 2021, No. F079342) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 793], the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that Muskan Foods (Petitioner) failed to exhaust their available administrative appeals to challenge the approval of a competing development, despite an acknowledged ambiguity in the City of Fresno (City) Municipal Code’s administrative appeal procedures.
Fourth District Court of Appeal Rejects Mahon Interpretation of the Streamlining Act Notice Requirements
In Linovitz Capo Shores LLC v. California Coastal Commission (2021) 65 Cal. App. 5th 1106, the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the California Coastal Commission’s (Commission) failure to act on a series of mobilehome renovation permits constituted an approval under the Permit Streamlining Act, despite the fact the Commission’s notice did not specify that the permits may be deemed approved if the agency failed to timely act on them. In reaching this conclusion, the Court disproved of the First District’s opinion, Mahon v. County of San Mateo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 812 (Mahon), resulting in a circuit split. The Court held that the required notice is what is required by statutory, constitutional, and decisional law under the circumstances.
Sixth District Court of Appeal Upholds Adoption of Environmentally Superior Alternative Project Including Reduced Percentage of Affordable Housing
In Carmel Valley Ass’n v. County of Monterey (2021) 2021 Cal.App.Unpub. LEXIS 3286, the Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed a decision granting a petition of mandate against the County of Monterey’s (County) approval of an environmentally superior alternative to a proposed mixed-use residential subdivision project (Project). The decision was issued on May 19, 2021, so any request for publication under Cal. Rules of Court 8.1120 is due by June 8, 2021.
Second District Court of Appeal Upholds $750,000 in Attorney Fees and Costs Following Partial CEQA Victory
In Bldg. A Better Redondo v. City of Redondo Beach (2021) 2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1038, the Second District Court of Appeal upheld an $80,000 costs and $683,000 attorney fee award, following a partially successful CEQA challenge. The Court rejected ten challenges to the award (bulleted below) including challenges to the $650/hour rate, fees for Petitioners’ counsel attending a City Council hearing after litigation commenced, and for holding the City jointly and severally liable.
First District Court of Appeal Finds University of California’s Decision to Increase Enrollment Is Not Exempt from CEQA Review
In Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods v. Regents of the University of California (2020) 51 Cal. App. 5th 226, the First District Court of Appeal overruled a demurrer rejecting community members’ allegations that the University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley) violated CEQA by failing to analyze enrollment increases beyond the development envelope considered in the campus Long Range Development Plan (LRDP).
Second District Court of Appeal Upholds Challenge to an MND for a Mixed-Use Project on Environmentally Sensitive Hillside and Award of Attorney Fees
In Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills (February 24, 2020) 2020 Cal. App. LEXIS 222, in a detailed decision, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgement and concluded that a proposed mixed-use development project in Los Angeles County presented potentially significant impacts requiring the preparation of an
Sacramentans for Fair Planning v. City of Sacramento (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 698, 704.
Sacramentans for Fair Planning v. City of Sacramento (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 698, 704.
The Yamanee project, a 10-story mixed-use condominium development in Midtown Sacramento, (Project) exceeded both the density and height limits of its parcel’s zone. A Sacramento General Plan provision allows the City Council to authorize projects at densities higher than the applicable zoning