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
In the Department of Water Resources Cases (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 265, the Third District Court of Appeal, in a partially published opinion, found that the Legislature did not expressly waive the Department of Water Resources’ (DWR’s) sovereign immunity with respect to geotechnical drilling and boring when the Legislature enacted a statute requiring each county to adopt well protection ordinances that meet or exceed DWR’s standards.
Between 2008 and 2009, as part of an effort to improve statewide water supply reliability and restore the ecosystem and native fish populations of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta), DWR filed more than 150 separate petitions in superior court seeking entry onto privately owned properties in five counties—including the County of Sacramento (County). Specifically, DWR sought entry to conduct environmental and geologic studies involving drilling deep holes or borings to determine subsoil conditions.
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
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(Cal. Jan. 19, 2022) 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
In the unpublished Elfin Forest Harmony Grove Town Council v. County of San Diego (Oct. 14, 2021, Nos.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
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 Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. A160560, the Court of Appeal held that under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and related procedural rules, real parties in interest are not automatically considered indispensable parties to CEQA litigation. Whether a real party in interest is indispensable
In Cal. Renters Legal Advocacy & Educ. Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, the First District considered an appeal from the denial of a petition that alleged the City of San Mateo (City) improperly denied a housing development under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). The Court agreed that the denial had violated the HAA, and further upheld the HAA as a constitutional exercise of legislative authority.