In Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. County of San Diego (2025) 109 Cal. App.5th 1257, the Fourth District Court of Appeal invalidated two thresholds of significance adopted by the County of San Diego (“County”) that in certain circumstances would have avoided the need for a project proponent to perform an analysis of vehicle miles travelled.
In Sunflower Alliance v. California Department of Conservation (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 771, the First District Court of Appeal held that a project that would turn an existing oil well into an injection well to pump water back into an aquifer (Project) was exempt from CEQA under the Class 1 exemption for minor alterations to an
In Nassiri v. City of Lafayette (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 910, the First District Court of Appeal (Court) held that a proposed 12-unit condo (Project) in the City of Lafayette (City) was exempt from CEQA because it qualified for the Class 32 Infill Exemption, upholding the trial court’s determination. In doing so, the Court rejected arguments
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 California Construction and Industrial Materials Association v. County of Ventura (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1, the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association and the Ventura County Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business separately and unsuccessfully petitioned for writs of mandate to require the County of Ventura to vacate an ordinance creating a wildlife migration corridor. The
In Lucas v. City of Pomona (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 508, the Second District of the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision that the City of Pomona’s (“City”) application of the statutory exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15183 was proper for approval of a zoning overlay district for commercial cannabis activities (the “Project”). Applying
In Anderson v. County of Santa Barbara (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 554 (Anderson), the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s grant of a preliminary injunction that barred Santa Barbara County from removing unpermitted encroachments from a public right-of-way. In reversing the preliminary injunction, the Court held that the petitioners would
The Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Olen Properties Corp. v. City of Newport Beach (2023) ___Cal.App.5th___, upheld the City of Newport Beach’s approval of a 312-unit apartment complex challenged by a neighboring commercial development owner. To comply with CEQA, the City of Newport Beach prepared an addendum to an existing environmental impact report
In Tulare Lake Canal Company v. Stratford Public Utility District (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 380, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a trial court order denying a preliminary injunction to halt the construction of a water pipeline through an easement granted by the Stratford Public Utilities District (SPUD) without first undergoing environmental review.
In Claremont Canyon Conservancy v. Regents of the University of California (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 474, two organizations, the Claremont Canyon Conservancy and the Hills Conservation Network, filed petitions for writ of mandate challenging the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) for a plan to conduct a Wildland Vegetative Fuel Management Plan to decrease wildfire risk at the University of California, Berkeley’s Hill Campus. Consolidated in the trial court, the petitions asserted that the EIR’s project description and discussion of environmental impacts were inadequate, arguing that the EIR lacked important details about the precise number of trees to be removed under the Plan. The trial court agreed, and halted the Plan. In a dramatic turn, the Court of Appeal reversed, finding that “the EIR include[d] sufficient detail to enable the public to understand the environmental impacts associated with the Regents’ plan to remove vegetation in specific locations on the Hill Campus to reduce wildlife risk.” The case helps settle the level of detail required in an EIR’s project description, particularly where some details may be subject to refinement when implementing the project.