Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) determined that its approval for a Richmond rail-to-truck facility to transload crude oil instead of ethanol was “ministerial” and exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. Transloading of crude oil began in September 2013. The trial court dismissed a challenge filed in March 2014 as time-barred under Public Resources Code 21167(d), because it was filed more than 180 days after “the date of the public agency’s decision to carry out or approve the project,” the Authority to Construct issued in July 2013. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting an argument that the action was timely under the discovery rule, which postpones the accrual of an action from the date an injury occurs until the date the plaintiff has actual or constructive notice of the facts constituting the injury. The plaintiffs claimed they could not have learned about BAAQMD’s determination any earlier, as BAAQMD gave no “public notice” and “the project itself [was] hidden from the public eye.” An action to challenge such a determination accrues on one of three alternative dates listed in section 21167(d). A plaintiff is deemed to have constructive notice of a potential CEQA violation on all three alternative dates of accrual under section 21167(d). View "Communities for a Better Env't v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist." on Justia Law

The department and the developer appealed from a judgment granting a mandate petition. The litigation and appeal arise from the department's December 3, 2010: certification of the revised final environmental impact statement and impact report; approval of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan; the adoption of the Spineflower Conservation Plan and Master Streambed Alteration Agreement; and issuance of two incidental take permits. The court issued an opinion reversing the October 15, 2012 judgment, the Supreme Court granted review, and the case was remanded to the court. In the published portion of this opinion, the court discussed the developer's contention, concurred in by the department, that the court should supervise compliance with a writ of mandate. The court concluded that it does not have the authority to issue its own writ of mandate and then supervise compliance with its orders because the court is reviewing this case on direct appeal. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife" on Justia Law

The Association filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the approval of a shopping center project that would be adjacent to an established residential neighborhood. The trial court denied the writ petition and entered judgment in favor of the City. The court upheld the City's determination that the project was consistent with the Neighborhood Plan Prototype policies of the General Plan. The court concluded that when the rezoning policy is construed in light of the other provisions of the General Plan, the meaning of what is adequate mitigation under the circumstances must make allowances for the fact that mitigation is not required where it is infeasible. Therefore, the Association has failed to demonstrate that the City erred by simply adopting findings that did not require infeasible mitigation. Under the exhaustion doctrine, the court concluded that the Association's claims regarding other General Plan policies were not preserved and the court declined to consider them. The court also concluded that the City complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. Finally, the court concluded that substantial evidence supports the City’s CEQA findings regarding urban decay and the statement of overriding considerations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the petition for writ of mandate. View "Naraghi Lakes Neighborhood Pres. Ass'n v. City of Modesto" on Justia Law

Panoche, a producer of electricity, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), a utility that purchases its electricity, disputed which of them should bear the costs of complying with a legislatively-mandated program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to the Global Warming Solutions Act (Assem. Bill 32 (2005–2006 Reg. Sess.). PG&E invoked the arbitration clause in its agreement with Panoche. Panoche resisted arbitration, arguing that the controversy was not ripe for resolution because ongoing regulatory proceedings at the California Air Resources Board and the California Public Utilities Commission would at least provide guidance in the arbitration and could render the proceeding unnecessary. The arbitration panel denied Panoche’s motion, and after a hearing determined that Panoche had assumed the cost of implementing AB 32 under the agreement and understood that at the time of signing. The arbitrators also concluded that the parties “provide[ed] for recovery of GHG costs” by Panoche through a “payment mechanism” in the agreement. The trial court agreed with Panoche, ruled that the arbitration was premature, and vacated the award. The court of appeal reversed and ordered confirmation of the award. Panoche identified no procedural disadvantage it suffered in going forward with the arbitration as scheduled and failed to meet the “sufficient cause” prong under Code of Civil Procedure 1286.2(a)(5). View "Panoche Energy Ctr. v. Pac. Gas & Elec." on Justia Law

The 2008 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375), was enacted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Earlier measures empowered the Air Resources Board to enact statewide mandates to reduce emissions. SB 375 empowers the Board to set targets for regional planning agencies to reduce emissions from automobiles and light trucks and requires each regional agency, after extensive planning, to develop a “sustainable community strategy” to meet those targets using regional land use and transportation policies. In 2010, the Board issued targets for the Bay Area region, calling for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments to develop strategies that would result in per capita percentage reductions in emissions of 7 percent by 2020 and 15 percent by 2035, as compared to emissions in 2005. These reductions were to be in addition to those expected from pre-existing statewide mandates. The Agencies updated the regional transportation plan and prepared their first sustainable communities strategy, “Plan Bay Area” and approved a final environmental impact report. The Board accepted the Agencies’ determination that Plan Bay Area would meet its emission reduction targets. Citizens offered an alternative plan that counted on reductions expected from pre-existing statewide mandates and challenged the environmental impact report and the Plan aa “draconian.” The trial court, concluding that reliance on pre-existing statewide mandates to meet the regional targets would constitute improper double counting not permitted by SB 375, denied Citizens’ petition. The court of appeal affirmed. Citizens’ approach was contradicted by SB 375’s emphasis on regional innovations and legislative declarations and findings. View "Bay Area Citizens v. Ass'n Bay Area Gov'ts" on Justia Law

In 2011, Costco sought a use permit and rezoning for 15.33 acres in southeast Ukiah. In 2013, the city released an environmental impact report (EIR), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, 21050), describing the project as a 148,000-square-foot retail facility with a bakery, pharmacy, optical center, hearing aid center, food court, photo center, tire center, 16-pump gas station, and 608 customer parking spots. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce the impact, including modifications to impacted intersections, but due to uncertainty of timing and funding of those measures, concluded that the traffic impacts cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. The EIR also concluded that the increase in traffic volumes would result in higher noise levels along local roadways but that traffic noise associated with the project would be less than significant. The city certified the EIR, adopted a statement of overriding considerations, and adopted the rezoning legislation. Opponents unsuccessfully challenged the rezoning and the sufficiency of the EIR. The court of appeal reversed, agreeing that the EIR failed to sufficiently analyze potential energy impacts and that the adoption of an EIR addendum after approval of the EIR and of the project violated CEQA. View "Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah" on Justia Law

This appeal was one of six related cases arising out of a proposed project to pump fresh groundwater from an underground aquifer in the Mojave Desert (the Project). The aquifer was located below real property owned by Cadiz, Inc. In this case, the Center for Biological Diversity, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, and Sierra Club, San Gorgonio Chapter (collectively, CBD), and the National Parks Conservation Association (National Parks) filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the trial court, challenging the approval of the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The named respondents were the Santa Margarita Water District (as the lead agency for the Project); the Board of Directors of the Santa Margarita Water District; the County of San Bernardino, a responsible agency for the Project (the County); and the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino. The trial court denied the petition. On appeal, appellants contended: (1) Santa Margarita was improperly designated as the lead agency for the Project, and that this error so tainted the environmental review process that such designation requires preparation of a new environmental impact report (EIR); (2) the EIR's project description was inaccurate and misleading because the Project was described as a means of conserving water, but would not save from evaporation an amount of water equal to the amount being pumped from the aquifer over the life of the Project; (3) the EIR was misleading because it did not provide an accurate duration for pumping by the Project; and (4) the Project would pump more water from the aquifer than was contemplated by and discussed in the EIR. Having reviewed the EIR and related documents, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court did not err in denying the application for a writ of mandate. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino" on Justia Law

This appeal was one of six related cases arising out of a proposed project to pump fresh groundwater from an underground aquifer in the Mojave Desert (the Project). The aquifer was located below real property owned by Cadiz, Inc. Delaware Tetra Technologies, Inc. filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the trial court, challenging a resolution by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors authorizing the execution of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) among the County, Cadiz, the Santa Margarita Water District, and the Fenner Valley Mutual Water Company. Delaware Tetra argued that the County improperly approved the Memorandum without having performed the necessary environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The trial court denied the petition for a writ of mandate, and Delaware Tetra appealed. The Court of Appeal concluded environmental review was not required before the County approved the Memorandum. Furthermore, the Court concluded the MOU did not violate either the County's relevant groundwater management ordinance or common law. Therefore, the Court affirmed. View "Delaware Tetra Tech. Inc. v. County of San Bernardino" on Justia Law

The Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. (UMMP) appealed the trial court's denial of its petition for writ of mandate seeking to set aside under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an ordinance prohibiting mobile medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of Upland. UMMP contended the City's adoption of the ordinance violated CEQA because the City did not first consider the ordinance's reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts. The City argued that the ordinance was not a "project" subject to CEQA, or was exempt under CEQA's "common-sense" exemption for projects that have no potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the ordinance was not a project under CEQA, and affirmed on that basis. View "Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of Upland" on Justia Law

The Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. (UMMP) appealed the trial court's denial of its petition for writ of mandate seeking to set aside under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an ordinance prohibiting mobile medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of Upland. UMMP contended the City's adoption of the ordinance violated CEQA because the City did not first consider the ordinance's reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts. The City argued that the ordinance was not a "project" subject to CEQA, or was exempt under CEQA's "common-sense" exemption for projects that have no potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the ordinance was not a project under CEQA, and affirmed on that basis. View "Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of Upland" on Justia Law