The court rejected a claim that the city violated CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(g) by failing to summarize each of the revisions to a draft EIR made by a revised and recirculated draft EIR. Save Civita Because Sudberry Won’t v. City of San Diego, 2021 WL 5937417 (No. D077591, 4th Dist. 1st Div., December. 16, 2021).
Court Upholds Infill Development Categorical Exemption for Gas Station in Existing Shopping Center
In Protect Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin, 70 Cal. App. 5th 951 (2021), the court of appeal upheld a city’s reliance on the infill development categorical exemption under CEQA for a new gas station in an existing shopping center in a commercial area.
The petitioner, Protect Tustin Ranch, challenged the City of Tustin’s
Certification of Howard Terminal Project for Streamlined CEQA Review Under AB 734 Was Not Subject to AB 900 Deadlines
A California Court of Appeal held that special legislation providing fast-track judicial review to the Howard Terminal Project did not impose a deadline for the Governor to certify the project for streamlined environmental review under CEQA. Pacific Merchant Shipping Association v. Newsom (Oakland Athletics Investment Group, LLC), 67 Cal. App. 5th 711 (2021).
Court Invalidates EIR for Development of Lake Tahoe Resort
The EIR for development of a new resort at Squaw Valley failed to meaningfully address Lake Tahoe as part of the environmental setting and was deficient in its analysis of water quality, air quality, and noise impacts. In a separate opinion, the court held that the County violated the Brown Act by placing a copy
CEQA Existing Facilities Exemption Inapplicable to Unlined Landfills and Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies not Required Where Public Notice of Intent to Rely on a CEQA Exemption is Inadequate
A California Court of Appeal held that CEQA’s issue exhaustion requirement did not preclude a challenge to Inyo County’s exemption determinations for condemnation proceedings and expanded operation of unlined landfills because the County failed to provide adequate notice that CEQA exemptions would be considered at its public meeting. As a matter of law, the Court
Agreement to Extend Statute of Limitations for CEQA Claim Was Ineffective Because It Did Not Include an Indispensable Party
The Court of Appeal held that a CEQA challenge to a decision approving removal of trees adjacent to PG&E gas pipelines was time-barred because an agreement to toll the statute of limitations did not include PG&E, which was an indispensable party in the proceedings, and the suit was filed after the applicable 180-day limitations period
In Limited Circumstances an EIR’s Alternatives Analysis Can Be Confined to the No Project Alternative
In Save Our Access v Watershed Conservation Authority, 68 Cal. App. 5th 8 (2021), plaintiff Save Our Access challenged the EIR certified by the Watershed Conservation Authority for a project to improve a recreation area within the Angeles National Forest. The project was designed to restore natural resources damaged by heavy recreational use, upgrade
Developer Established a Prima Facie Case That Project Opponents Lacked Probable Cause and Acted with Malice in Pursuing CEQA Litigation
A developer established a probability of prevailing on its claims for malicious prosecution where the evidence showed that the neighboring owner lacked probable cause for pursuing CEQA litigation and acted with malice. Dunning v. Johnson, 64 Cal. App. 5th 156 (2021).
Clews Horse Ranch sued to challenge a decision by the City of San
Evidence About Existing Wildfire Hazards Near a Project Does Not Require an EIR
Evidence about past wildfires and the risk of future wildfires impacting residents near a proposed project does not require the lead agency to prepare an environmental impact report unless there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project may exacerbate existing wildfire hazards. Newtown Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado, No.
Agency’s Preparation of Supplemental EIR Rather Than Subsequent EIR for Modifications to Proposed Desalination Plant Was Appropriate
The State Lands Commission was not required to assume the role of lead agency and prepare a subsequent EIR for changes to a desalinization plant for which an EIR had already been certified by the City of Huntington Beach as lead agency. California Coastkeeper Alliance v State Lands Commission, 64 Cal. App. 5th 36