On remand from the California Supreme Court, the First District Court of Appeal again considered the case of Tomlinson v. County of Alameda (Case No. A125471) in light of the Supreme Court’s holding (54 Cal.4th 281) that the exhaustion of administrative remedies provision as set forth in Public Resources Code section 21177, subdivision (e), applies
Procedural Issues
Court Finds Evidence Plaintiff Should Have Known About CEQA Violation At Time Injury Occurred Over A Year Ago, Therefore Court Held Plaintiff’s CEQA Claim Time Barred
In Lucille Saunders v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6965, Lucille Saunders (Saunders) and Fix the City sought writs of mandate to require the City of Los Angeles (City) to comply with its general plan, its municipal code, applicable Government Codes, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Second…
Court of Appeal Views Appellants’ Failure to Present and Discredit Evidence favorable to the Agency as a Concession that Substantial Evidence Does In Fact Support Agency
In an unpublished decision, El Pueblo Para El Aire Y Agua Limpio v. Kings County Board of Supervisors, 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4984, Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice and El Pueblo Para El Aire y Agua Limpio (collectively appellants) sued the Kings County Board of Supervisors (County) alleging that the County’s approval…
Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Peace: Petitioners Must Exhaust Their Administrative Remedies Prior to Challenging an Agency’s Decision That a Project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA
In Tomlinson v. County of Alameda (Case No. S188161), the Supreme Court of California held that the exhaustion of administrative remedies provision as set forth in Public Resources Code section 21177, subdivision (e), applies to a public agency’s decision that a project is categorically exempt from CEQA. The Court’s eleven page decision put to rest…
Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal. App. 4th 758
The Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Water District, and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California entered into various agreements concerning the allocation and conservation of California’s share of Colorado River water. The Imperial Irrigation District filed a validation action, which was opposed by many in separate lawsuits, all challenging the agreements on several grounds, including…
Friends of Shingle Springs Interchange, Inc. v. County of El Dorado (2011) 200 Cal. App. 4th 1470
Petitioner petitioned for a writ of mandate, claiming the County of El Dorado (County) violated CEQA, the Planning and Zoning Law, and traffic safety regulations when it approved a gas station. County responded with a demurrer to the petition, claiming that the Petitioner lacked the capacity to sue since the Petitioner’s corporate status was suspended…
Community Water Coalition v. Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Com. (2011) 200 Cal. App. 4th 1317
The Santa Cruz Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approved an agreement between the University of California at Santa Cruz (UCSC) and the City of Santa Cruz (City), which stated that the City would extend water and sewer services to UCSC’s north campus, an area just outside the city’s jurisdictional boundaries. The Community Water Coalition (CWC)…
Ross v. California Coastal Com. (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 900
The Malibu Bay Company (MBC) proposed amendments to the City of Malibu’s local coastal program to facilitate development of beach front property it owned. Specifically, MBC requested a reduction of the minimum lot size. The City Council approved the amendments in a mitigated negative declaration. After the city approved the amendment, the Coastal Commission did…
Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949
The County of Sonoma (County) approved a development project for a warehouse and beverage distribution center. Prior to approving the project, the County conducted an initial study and issued a mitigated negative declaration (MND). The trial court held that the County had failed to send necessary notice to the Bay Area AQMD (BAAQMD) prior to…
Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. City of Santa Clarita (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1042
The City of Santa Clarita (City) certified an EIR and adopted a master plan for a project to expand a hospital and medical office space over a 15-year period. The Petitioner challenged the City’s approvals for two reasons: First, the City failed to provide evidence and explanations for why the project’s impact on climate change…