On March 22, 2022, the Second District Court of Appeal published its Opinion in Buena Vista Water Storage District v. Kern Water Bank Authority, upholding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Kern Water Bank Authority’s Conservation and Storage Project (“Project”) and reversing the trial court’s ruling. The Project proposes to divert up
In League to Save Lake Tahoe Mt. Area Pres. Found. v. County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, the Third District Court of Appeal held that a land use specific plan and rezoning permit for commercial and residential development, including workforce housing, of forest land in the Martis Valley near the Northstar California Ski Resort
In Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Cruz (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 985, the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s determination that the City of Santa Cruz (City) had complied with CEQA in approving a 32-unit residential project (Project) and overturned the trial court’s ruling that the City had violated
In Save Civita Because Sudberry Won’t v. City of San Diego (Dec. 16, 2021, D077591) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2021 Cal.App. LEXIS 1055], the Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed CEQA and Constitutional claims related to a proposed roadway in the City of San Diego (City). In the published portion of the opinion, the Court held that
In an opinion certified for partial publication, the Third Appellate District on November 3, 2021, decided Farmland Protection Alliance v. County of Yolo, finding that the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not allow an agency to split environmental review across multiple levels of review—for example, by preparing a negative declaration to address some project issues and an environmental impact report to address others. Rather, CEQA requires an agency to prepare a full EIR whenever any aspect of a project may have a significant effect on the environment.
In Central Delta Water Agency v. Department of Water Resources (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 170, the Third District Court of Appeal considered three consolidated appeals arising out of long-term water contracts that have been the subject of repeated rounds of environmental review and litigation lasting decades. In each of the consolidated cases, the Court of Appeal set forth the respective trial courts’ reasoning and rulings at length, and affirmed them in full.
In September 2021, the Third District Court of Appeal in Sierra Watch v. Placer County reversed a judgement upholding Placer County’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a resort development project in the Olympic (formerly Squaw) Valley area. In the published portion of the opinion, the court found errors in the EIR’s description of the environmental setting and related water and air quality impact analyses, as well as in the EIR’s analysis and mitigation for construction noise impacts.
In the unpublished Elfin Forest Harmony Grove Town Council v. County of San Diego (Oct. 14, 2021, Nos. D077611, D078101) [2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6474], the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the County of San Diego’s (County) approval of the Harmony Grove Village project’s (Project) environmental impact report (EIR) did not employ adequate greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation measures and was inconsistent with the affordable housing component of the General Plan. However, the Court upheld the EIR’s wildfire and air quality analyses, as well as the County’s determination that the Project was consistent with a Community Plan’s sewage treatment requirement.
On August 19, 2021, in Save Our Access – San Gabriel Mountains vs. Watershed Conservation Authority, the Second District Court of Appeal, in reversing the lower court’s judgement, upheld an Environmental Impact Report’s (EIR’s) finding of less than significant impact under CEQA for an intentional reduction in parking meant to protect and restore the environment. The court found that a reduction in parking is usually a social and not an environmental impact. Because the petitioner failed to identify any secondary adverse physical effects on the environment resulting from the project’s impact on available parking, there was no CEQA impact here.
In June 2021, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the County of El Dorado’s (“County”) mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) for a bridge construction project against complaints that the project’s construction would block an evacuation route for residents in the event of a wildfire. In its holding in Newtown Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado, the Court reaffirmed precedent finding that the key question for hazards, such as wildfire, in the context of CEQA is not the impact that the existing environment presents to the project, but whether the project would exacerbate hazard risks.