On January 7, 2014, the City of Sacramento unanimously approved a Conditional Use Permit and took related actions authorizing the development of a three-story 28-room residential care facility on a 0.36-acre parcel in the Central City. In approving the Project, the City found the Project was exempt from CEQA because, among other reasons, it is
California Public Utilities Commission Awards $1.5 Million for Neighborhood Association’s Successful Opposition to a Natural Gas Storage Project Located in an Urban Residential Neighborhood
On Thursday, November 14, 2013, the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) unanimously approved the award of almost $1.5 million to the Avondale-Glen Elder Neighborhood Association (AGENA) to reimburse expenses incurred in its approximately 5-year battle to oppose the Sacramento Natural Gas Storage, LLP (SNGS) proposal to store 8 billion cubic feet of natural gas underneath
Thomas Law Group 2013 Holiday Party
Court Holds CEQA-Related Calendaring Error by Attorney was “Excusable Neglect” Under Code of Civil Procedure § 473
In Comunidad en Accion v. Los Angeles City Council, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 756, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s unlawful discrimination claim, while reversing the dismissal of plaintiff’s CEQA claim.
The court of appeal reversed the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s CEQA claim
Plastic Bag Coalition Unable to Litigate its Way Out of a Paper (or Cloth) Bag
In Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. County of Marin, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 588, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District affirmed denial of a petition for writ of mandate challenging a county’s adoption of an ordinance banning single-use plastic bags.
In January of 2011, the Marin County Board of Supervisors (“Board”)
Court Allows ARB’S LCFS Regulations to Remain In Effect Pending Outcome of New Proceedings
In POET, LLC v. California Air Resources Board, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 554, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision denying plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of mandate seeking invalidation of California Air Resources Board (“ARB”) approval of low carbon fuel standards (“LCFS”) regulations for non-compliance with CEQA. In an unpublished
California Supreme Court Issues Neighbors for Smart Rail Decision: Predicted Conditions Baseline Allowable Under CEQA in Limited Circumstances
In a much anticipated decision, the California Supreme Court held in Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority that lead agencies can use future predicted conditions as an environmental baseline in assessing the impacts of proposed projects. The court held that in order for an agency to omit the normally required existing
CEQA Challenge Barred by 30-Day Statute of Limitations Based on Exemption Not Asserted in Notice of Exemption
In May v. City of Milpitas, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 557, the Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District held that a 30-day statute of limitations in Government Code section 65457 barred a CEQA challenge for which a Notice of Exemption (“NOE”) had been filed. NOE’s typically trigger a 35-day statute of limitations; however,
A Mendocino County Quarry Project Can’t Keep the ACE in the Hole, Court Finds Inadequate the EIR’s Farmland Conversion Analysis
On July 27, 2010, Mendocino County approved the Kunzler Terrace Mine Project, a 65.3 acre sand and gravel quarry one mile north of Ukiah. Project opponents sued, alleging various CEQA violations. The First District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the challengers and published the portion of the decision addressing impacts to agricultural lands.
Court Finds the Mutual Desire to Comply with CEQA does not Create a Common Interest Between Lead Agencies and Developers
In Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court of Stanislaus County, petitioners sought writ relief from the trial court’s order excluding hundreds of documents from the administrative record based upon the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine asserted by the city and the project applicants/developers. The Court of Appeal, Fifth District, ordered the trial court to