In Friends v. Cal. Coastal Commission (Nov. 15, 2021, H048088, H04809) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2021 Cal.App. LEXIS 1038], the Sixth District Court of Appeal found that the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) violated CEQA by approving a coastal development permit without making specific findings about project alternatives and mitigation measures pursuant to the Coastal Commission’s
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 South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. City of Los Angeles (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 314, the Second District Court of Appeal upheld a trial court decision denying the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Locals 13, 63, and 94 (Union) permissive intervention in CEQA litigation. While the Union alleged that the joined parties would not sufficiently protect the interests of its members, the Court of Appeal found no abuse of discretion in the trial court ruling that such interests did not sufficiently justify the complications Union intervention would bring to an already complex case.
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
Effective January 1, 2022, Assembly Bill 819 (AB 819), signed by Governor Newsom earlier this year, imposes expanded requirements on lead agencies when posting CEQA notices and documents.
Under the bill, lead agencies must post the following documents and notices to their websites, if they have one:
DEIRs, negative declarations, mitigated negative declarations, notices of
In Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. County of Inyo (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 1018, the Fifth District considered a challenge to a decision by Inyo County (County) to acquire landfill sites owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) through eminent domain. In the published portion of the opinion, the Court upheld the writ issued by the trial court and held that (1) the County’s failure to give notice of its intent to use a CEQA exemption excused the LADWP from exhausting administrative remedies as to exemption claims, and (2) the existing facilities categorical exemption did not apply to the operations of the unlined landfills.
In McCann v. City of San Diego (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 51, the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the Plaintiff, Margaret McCann (McCann), was barred from bringing a judicial action challenging the City’s approval of projects for undergrounding utility lines because she failed to exhaust the City of San Diego’s (City’s) administrative appeal process. With regard to a second set of undergrounding projects also challenged by McCann, the Court ruled that the City’s mitigated negative declaration (MND) failed to adequately examine whether the projects were consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). However, it ruled in favor of the City on the Plaintiff’s allegation regarding aesthetic impacts, concluding that generalized claims and reliance on the comments of a single speaker did not support a fair argument and, further, case law suggests that small utility boxes do not require preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR).
In Muskan Foods & Fuel v. City of Fresno (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 372, 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.
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.
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.