CEQA Chronicles

YOUR RESOURCE FOR WHAT'S NEW IN CEQA LAW AND LITIGATION

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 an agreement to toll the CEQA statute of limitations because it was not a signatory. Additionally, the Court upheld the dismissal for failure to state a viable cause of action to all other claims. Appellants filed an action against East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), naming…
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 Dorado, the Court reaffirmed precedent finding that the key question for hazards, such as wildfire, in the context of CEQA is not the impact that the existing environment presents to the project, but whether the Project would exacerbate hazard risks. The project at issue…
In Stop Syar Expansion v. County of Napa (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 444, the First District Court of Appeal upheld Napa County’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the expansion of Syar Industries, Inc.’s aggregate mining operations at a local quarry. Citizen group Stop Syar Expansion (“SSE”) filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate under CEQA claiming that the EIR was deficient on 16 counts, including in its analysis of greenhouse gas emissions, water usage baseline, water quality, and general plan consistency. The trial court denied the Petition for Writ of Mandate, and SSE appealed, raising five issues. The Court of Appeal…
On June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-08-21 (the “Order”) that establishes September 30, 2021, as the end date for COVID-19 pandemic-related suspensions for (1) deadlines for filing, noticing, and posting of CEQA documents with county clerk offices; (2) tribal consultation deadlines under CEQA; and (3) open meeting requirements. This end date for pandemic-related relief from normal CEQA procedures is certain to affect base requirements for ongoing projects. CEQA Deadlines, Noticing, and Filing Requirements In our earlier blog report, we noted that Executive Orders N-80-20 and N-54-20 had conditionally suspended certain requirements for filing, noticing, posting and public access…
In an opinion filed on April 19, and certified for publication on May 4, 2021, the Third Appellate District in Alliance for Responsible Planning v. Taylor (County of El Dorado) held that a citizen-sponsored ballot measure requiring new development to fund all cumulative traffic mitigation prior to construction violated the Takings Clause of the Constitution by requiring new development to pay more than its fair share. The Court’s ruling reaffirms the constitutional principles of nexus and proportionality as applied to general plan policies and mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and limits the ability of local agencies to…
On May 20, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 7, known as the Housing and Jobs Expansion and Extensions Act, which extends expedited California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) judicial review for small-scale housing developments.  In 2011, Assembly Bill 900, known as the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act, created an expedited judicial review process under CEQA for large, multi-benefit housing, clean energy, and manufacturing projects, provided that they met certain requirements, including provisions related to labor.  Eligible projects were entitled to immediate review in the court of appeal—rather than superior court—and would…
In Jan Dunning et al. v. Kevin K. Johnson, APLC et al., the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a developer and property owner could pursue its claims against a neighbor and project opponent for malicious prosecution after the developer successfully defended a meritless CEQA lawsuit against its construction of a private secondary school project.  The Fourth District found that the developer established a probability of prevailing on its malicious prosecution claim by presenting evidence that the project opponents in the CEQA action pursued their claim with malice and without probable cause.  This case is a warning shot…
In California Coastkeeper v. State Lands Commission, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the State Lands Commission’s decision to prepare a supplemental environmental impact report (EIR) for a desalination plant in Huntington Beach, overturning an earlier trial court ruling that invalidated the EIR.  Limited changes to a desalination project were proposed in order to comply with desalination-related amendments to the State’s Ocean Plan.  Because the prior EIR retained informational value, and the proposed changes to the Project were minor, it was appropriate for the Commission, in its capacity as a responsible agency, to prepare a supplemental EIR under the…
On April 20, 2021, the First District Court of Appeal filed its first published opinion interpreting California Senate Bill 35’s streamlining provisions in Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley.  The Court held that the City of Berkeley erred in finding a mixed-use development project ineligible for SB 35 streamlining.  Because the project met the essential qualifications under SB 35, the First District commanded the trial court to issue a writ of mandate directing the City to approve the project without further environmental review.  This marks the first published decision to enforce the State’s new affordable housing laws and is…
Published on February 9, 2021, the Court of Appeal in Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso v. City of San Jose held that the City of San Jose’s (“City’s”) posting of a second, revised Notice of Determination (“NOD”) adequately triggered CEQA’s abbreviated, 30-day statute of limitations despite the fact that the City failed to provide a copy to the Petitioner’s representative as requested. While CEQA requires lead agencies to provide notices to those who have requested them, the Court held that the revised NOD in this instance provided constructive notice sufficient to trigger the 30-day statute and dismiss the case. In this…