In Yolo Land and Water Defense v. the County of Yolo (2024 105 Cal.App.5th 710, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the County’s EIR for a sand and gravel mine, known as the Teichert Shifler Mining and Reclamation Project. Downey Brand attorneys Andrew Skanchy and Sam Bacal-Graves successfully represented the County in this litigation
In Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that plaintiff Hilltop Group, Inc. (“Hilltop”) could proceed with developing a recycling facility, over the objections of community groups and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors (“Board of Supervisors” or “Board”). The proposed North
In June we reported that California Governor Gavin Newsom’s infrastructure permitting and CEQA reform legislation package was mostly dead, with the Legislature finding it too complex for last-minute consideration. But there’s a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Legislators and the Governor subsequently reached a tentative agreement to allow a pared-down version
In Save Livermore Downtown v. City of Livermore (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 1116, the First District Court of Appeal held that the City of Livermore (City) did not violate planning and zoning laws when it approved a 130-unit affordable housing project (Project) in the downtown area. The Project was found to be exempt under CEQA
In a ruling that should send shivers up the spine of any public agency in California needing to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the Fourth District Court of Appeal on July 30 held that any email correspondence related to a project and its compliance with CEQA must be retained as part of
In Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1129, the First District Court of Appeal held that the Niles Historical Architectural Review Board’s (HARB) factual findings and members’ collective opinions about the compatibility of a project with the Niles Historic Overlay District rose to the level of substantial evidence. Further, fact-based comments in
In LandWatch San Luis Obispo County v. Cambria Community Services District (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 638, the Second District Court of Appeals affirmed an agency may properly take over the preparation of the administrative record per Public Resources Code section 21167.6(b)(1) when petitioner elects to prepare and fails to do so within 60 days.
LandWatch San
On January 12, 2018, the First Appellate District held that the California Attorney General need not exhaust administrative remedies in order to contest the adequacy of Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as is normally required of third-party challengers under Section 21177. City of Long Beach v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. A148993 (2018). The Appeals Court also held that BNSF Railway Company’s (BNSF) proposed construction of a new railyard in Southern California failed to adequately consider air quality impacts from the project. The case emphasizes the need for EIRs to consider impacts to ambient air pollutant concentrations and the cumulative impacts of such pollutants under CEQA, even if the underlying analysis may be time consuming and difficult to generate.
On April 13, the Second Appellate District disapproved two of its prior decisions that had expansively interpreted the availability of mandatory relief from default or dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). In The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, the court held that this mandatory relief provision did not apply to an adverse judgment at a CEQA merits hearing, resulting from plaintiff’s failure to lodge the administrative record with the court prior to the hearing.
The underlying mandate petition and complaint alleged a single cause of action challenging the City’s finding that a streetlight replacement project using LED lights was exempt from environmental review under CEQA. The parties stipulated that plaintiff would prepare the administrative record and, following certification by the City, lodge it with the trial court. However, plaintiff never lodged the certified record. At the hearing on the merits, the trial court determined that plaintiff could not present sufficient evidence to support its arguments because it failed to lodge the record. Accordingly, the trial court denied the plaintiff’s petition and complaint and entered judgment in favor of the City.
On March 2, 2017, the California Supreme Court ruled in City of San Jose v. Superior Court that where a public employee uses a personal email account or texts to communicate about the conduct of public business, those writings may be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (“PRA”). While resolving one long-debated question in California law, this decision also raised myriad new issues, including issues that are specifically relevant to litigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).