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.
Fourth District Finds Failure to Evaluate Consistency with CAP Rendered MND Incomplete Despite no Fair Argument of Inconsistency; Rejects Piecemealing, Project Description, and Aesthetic Impacts Claims, and Others as Barred by a Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
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).
Are Reductions in Parking a CEQA Impact – Second District Finds Context is Key
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
Fifth District Court of Appeal Finds Petitioner Failed to Exhaust Remedies in CUP Approval Challenge, Despite Ambiguous Administrative Appeal Procedures
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.
Ninth Circuit Finds that Distribution of Drinking Water Containing MCL-Compliant Levels of Hexavalent Chromium Gives Rise to RCRA Liability in Decision that Upends Law of the Circuit
The Ninth Circuit recently issued a decision in Cal. River Watch v. City of Vacaville (Case No. 20-16605) (“Vacaville”) regarding the breadth of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) liability for contributing to the transportation of a solid waste, which may present an “imminent and substantial endangerment” to health or the environment. (42
Petitioners Strike Out—Court Finds Statutory Deadline Does Not Preclude Streamlining of Oakland A’s Stadium Project
In August 2021, the First District Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Pacific Merchant Shipping Association v. Newsom, where the court held that Public Resources Code section 21168.6.7 does not impose on the Governor a deadline by which to certify construction of a new baseball park and mixed-use development project at the Howard
In Unpublished Opinion, the Third District Upholds Denial of Attorney Fees in a Matter also Prosecuted by the Attorney General
In the unpublished opinion N. Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water Dist. (June 28, 2021, No. C092233) [2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4220], the Third District Court of Appeal held that a CEQA petitioner had not sufficiently established a nonduplicative, significant contribution to litigation warranting the award of attorney fees in light of the Attorney General’s prosecution of the matter.
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, a party who enforces an important right affecting the public interest through litigation may be eligible to recover their attorney fees. To succeed under this provision, a party must establish, among other factors, the necessity for private enforcement.
First District Court of Appeal Finds CEQA Claim Time-Barred Due to Insufficient Tolling Agreement
On June 30, 2021, in Save Lafayette Trees, et. al v. East Bay Regional Park District (Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Real Party in Interest), the First District Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a CEQA claim as time-barred because it found that PG&E, a necessary and indispensable party, was not bound to
Residents’ Comments About Existing Fire Hazards Do Not Constitute Substantial Evidence of a New Project’s Impacts Under CEQA
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
Fourth District Court of Appeal Rejects Mahon Interpretation of the Streamlining Act Notice Requirements
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.