On July 8, 2011, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ordered the publication of Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista (2011) __Cal.App.4th__. The appellate court reversed in part a judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate that challenged a mitigated negative declaration (MND) adopted by the City of Chula Vista for a new expanded Target store. The Fourth District remanded the matter to the trial court to determine whether the mitigation measures required as a condition for receiving building permits adequately addressed contaminated soils. Continue reading →

On July 14, 2001, the California Supreme Court today issued its ruling in Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach. The court ruled in favor of the City of Manhattan Beach, upholding the City’s decision to ban plastic bags on the basis of a negative declaration. In its opinion, the court dealt with two issues of some consequence for practitioners of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): (1) standing and (2) the fair argument standard. Petitioner, a coalition of plastic bag manufacturers and distributors, claimed standing to maintain a citizen suit under CEQA. On the merits of the case, Petitioner argued that the evidence in the record supported a fair argument that the ban would increase environmental damage, so that an EIR was required. The Supreme Court ruled for Petitioner on the procedural issue and against Petitioner on the merits. Continue reading →

On July 18, 2011, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Silverado Modjeska Recreation and Parks District v. County of Orange (2011) ___Cal.App.4th___ found that the doctrine of res judicata barred petitioners from challenging respondent county’s compliance with a prior writ compelling the county to prepare and circulate an supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) considering the impact of the Silverado Canyon Ranch project on water quality. The court also rejected petitioners’ argument that following circulation of the draft SEIR, the county should have recirculated the SEIR with respect to a recent observation of endangered toad larvae in a creek near the project site. Lastly, the court reversed the trial court’s post-judgment order compelling payment of attorneys’ fees to the project developer, CCRC Farms, LLC, from one of the petitioners because the fee claim was based on the terms of an agreement between the developer and the petitioner and therefore should not have been resolved by way of a motion of attorneys’ fees. Continue reading →

On June 27, 2011, the First District Court of Appeal in Latinos Unidos De Napa v. City of Napa (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Case No. A129584), reversed a judgment dismissing a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) challenge on statute of limitations grounds. The court concluded the applicable statute of limitations was 180 days, not 30 days, because the notice of determination (NOD) had not been posted for a full 30 days as required by Public Resources Code section 21152, subdivision (c). Significantly, the court held that Code of Civil Procedure section 12 applies to the calculation of how long an NOD must be posted, and thus the first day on which an NOD is posted does not count as part of the 30-day posting period. Since the county clerk failed to post the notice for the entire 30th day as statutorily required, the 30-day statute of limitations was never triggered and the longer 180-day statute of limitations of Public Resources Code section 21167, subdivision (a), applied. Continue reading →

On June 21, 2011, the Fifth District Court of Appeal published part of its decision in Chawanakee Unified School Dist. v. County of Madera (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016, directing the trial court to grant a petition for writ of mandate that compels Madera County to set aside its approval of a development project, and to revise the project’s EIR with regard to analysis of indirect environmental impacts on the non-school physical environment. The court concluded that Government Code section 65996, subdivision (a), as amended by Senate Bill 50 (SB 50) in 1998, only excuses direct impacts on school facilities and buildings from being considered and mitigated in an EIR. Therefore, a project’s indirect impacts on traffic, air quality, and noise levels related to school attendance or construction of school facilities must be considered and mitigated in an EIR. Continue reading →

On March 22, 2011, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Banning Ranch Conservancy v. Superior Court (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 903, issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to set aside its order disqualifying the law firm Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger (Shute) from representing Banning Ranch Conservancy (Conservancy) in a suit against the City of Newport Beach (City). The court held that the 2005 “framework” retainer agreements at issue did not create a current attorney-client relationship between Shute and the City, since there was not an acceptance of an actual request for representation on any recent matters. Continue reading →

On April 5, 2011, the Second District Court of Appeal in Santa Monica Baykeeper v. City of Malibu (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1538, held that Santa Monica Baykeeper’s (Baykeepers) lawsuit challenging the City of Malibu’s adoption of an EIR and approval of a park and detention basin project was moot as to construction-related impacts because the project was completed during the pendency of the lawsuit, and no recognized exception to the mootness doctrine applied. The court also confirmed that substantial evidence supported the EIR’s conclusions regarding the use of treated effluent from an adjoining lumber yard project and the EIR’s conclusion that the project would reduce, rather than create, groundwater impacts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying Baykeeper’s petition for writ of mandate. Continue reading →

On April 27, 2011, the California Supreme Court denied a petition for review of the appellate court’s decision in Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559. In the appellate decision, the First District Court of Appeal reversed a judgment of the trial court and found that challenges to city council resolutions approving a retail-cinema redevelopment project had become moot during the trial because the project had been substantially completed before the trial court entered judgment. The court also held that a challenge to the potential future use of the city’s eminent domain authority was not ripe. Continue reading →

On June 10, 2011, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ordered the publication of its decision in Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515 (Case No. D057524). The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate to compel the City of San Diego to complete a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) instead of an addendum to a previously certified final environmental impact report (FEIR). The court held the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, where the petitioner submitted thousands of pages of documents during the public comment period without specifying the exact issue of noncompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Continue reading →