Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Respondent and real party in interest Al-Nur Islamic Center was a nonprofit religious organization which intended to erect an Islamic community center and mosque in a residential neighborhood in an unincorporated area of San Bernardino County. Plaintiff-appellant Save Our Uniquely Rural Community Environment (SOURCE) was an organization of individuals who opposed Al-Nur’s plans based on the negative environmental impact the opponents believed the project would have on the neighborhood. Following a study of the environmental impact of the proposed project, the San Bernardino County Planning Commission adopted a mitigated negative declaration (MND) and issued a conditional use permit (CUP) for the project. SOURCE appealed to the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors. After hearing testimony, the board of supervisors denied the appeal. SOURCE then filed a combined petition for writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive relief. The court granted the petition and overturned the approval of the MND and CUP on grounds of the county’s failure to properly analyze the project’s impacts on the environment in the area of wastewater disposal. It ordered the county to prepare an analysis in compliance with CEQA of the project’s impacts in that respect. SOURCE then filed a motion for attorney fees. Al-Nur opposed the motion on the grounds that because of SOURCE’s limited success, the petition failed to convey a public benefit justifying an award of attorney fees, that SOURCE had failed to demonstrate it was entitled to fees based on the current rates in Los Angeles rather than in San Bernardino County, that SOURCE had failed to demonstrate the number of hours it expended was reasonable and necessary, that it sought excessive fees for some of the work performed, and that a portion of the hours claimed were for activities related to the administrative proceedings and not to the litigation. The trial court granted the motion, finding that SOURCE conferred a public benefit sufficient to warrant an award of attorney fees. However, at the hearing on the motion, the court stated that the amount requested was "outrageous." SOURCE appealed the eventual award of fees it received, arguing the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded $19,176, despite SOURCE’s request for $231,098. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded that SOURCE did not meet its burden of demonstrating an abuse of discretion, and affirmed the award. View "Save Our Uniquely Rural v. County of San Bernardino" on Justia Law

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is charged with developing a state implementation plan in compliance with federal air quality standards. CARB is solely responsible for vehicular sources of air pollution. Local and regional districts have responsibility for controlling air pollution from all other sources. Health and Safety Code section 42300(a) provides: "Every district board may establish by regulation, a permit system that requires . . . that before any person builds, erects, alters, replaces, operates, or uses any article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance which may cause the issuance of air contaminants, the person obtain a permit." Friends of Oceano Dunes claimed that the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District exceeded its authority in adopting rule 1001 of Regulation X, Fugitive Dust Emission Standards Limitation and Prohibitions, which requires that the California Department of Parks and Recreation obtain an air emissions permit to operate the 3,600-acre Oceano Dunes States Vehicular Recreation Area. The trial court found that section 42300(a) authorized District to impose a permit system to regulate sand and dust emissions caused by off-road recreational vehicles. The court of appeal reversed, holding that, for purposes of section 42300(a), a state park is not a "contrivance." View "Friends of Oceano Dunes, Inc. v. San Luis Obispo Cnty. Air Pollution Control Dist." on Justia Law

Blaine Carian appeals a postjudgment order denying his motion for attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. In or about 1975, the Fish and Game Commission adopted a regulation that designated Magnesia Spring Ecological Reserve (Reserve) in Riverside County as an ecological reserve. In or about 1976, the Department apparently adopted a wildlife management plan for the Reserve, which provided that "[e]nforcement of laws pertaining to [the Reserve] should be the responsibility of the Department." In or about 2007, the Department apparently adopted a multi-species habitat conservation plan, which stated that "[u]se of trails on [the Department's] land is subject to [California Code of Regulations] Title 14." It also contemplated that the "Bump and Grind" portion (Trail) of the Mirage Trail would be decommissioned and removed by the Department in the future. In January 2012, Assembly Bill No. 284 was introduced to enact a statute allowing access to the Trail. That bill apparently expired, or "died," pursuant to the California Constitution for lack of timely passage. In March 2012, a new bill, Assembly Bill No. 880, was introduced that contained the same language as the prior bill to enact a statute allowing access to the Trail. Carian filed the underlying lawsuit against defendants the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Kimberly Nichol (a department manager), alleging causes of action for a writ of mandate directing the Department to reopen the Trail, taxpayer relief, quiet title to public easement, and declaratory relief. Assembly Bill No. 880 was ultimately passed, enacting former Fish and Game Code section 1587, effective as of January 2013, and the Governor signed the Bill. At the October 15 hearing on Defendants' demurrer, Carian conceded the new statute made his lawsuit moot. The court sustained Defendants' demurrer without leave to amend. In January 2013, Carian filed a motion for attorney fees under section 1021.5. In seeking an award of $100,000 in attorney fees against Defendants, Carian argued that his lawsuit was necessary to enforce an important right affecting the public interest and conferred a significant benefit on the general public by causing the State to open the Trail. The trial court found Carian did not, as required by 1021.5, make a reasonable attempt to settle his dispute before filing suit against defendants. On appeal, Carian argued the trial court erred in denying his motion for attorney fees because he gave the Department notice before filing his action, any attempt to settle the dispute would have been futile, and he satisfied all of the other requirements for an award of attorney fees under section 1021.5. The Court of Appeal confirmed the trial court's finding that Carian did not make a reasonable attempt to settle the dispute prior to filing his action against defendants. Therefore, Carian did not meet the requirement for an award of section 1021.5 attorney fees. View "Carian v. Dept. Fish & Wildlife" on Justia Law

McGrath Lake has about 12 acres of surface area. Its subwatershed consists of approximately 1,200 acres including agricultural fields, petroleum facilities, park land, public roads and a closed landfill. Runoff reaches the lake by Central Ditch; there is no natural outlet. The lake and its bed sediment are polluted with pesticides and PCBs. California implements the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251) through the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Wat. Code 13000), setting "total maximum daily load[s]" (TMDL) of pollutants for bodies of water. A Regional Board established TMDLs for pollutants coming from the Central Ditch and for pollutants in the lake bed sediment. The Basin Plan Amendment sets a goal of 14 years to achieve the TMDL for the lake bed sediment, but does not mandate any particular method of remediation. The trial court denied a challenge. The court of appeal affirmed. A TMDL is an informational document, not an implementation plan, so only first-tier analysis was necessary. Remediation measures are beyond the scope of the TMDL. Until a plan is formulated, full environmental analysis of any particular method of remediation is premature. View "Conway v. State Water Res. Control Bd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the Environmental Law Foundation (ELF), filed a complaint against Beech-Nut Nutrition Corporation and various other food manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, seeking enforcement of the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (commonly referred to as Proposition 65). ELF alleged certain of defendants’ products contain toxic amounts of lead sufficient to trigger the duty to provide warnings to consumers. After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants, concluding they had no duty to warn because they satisfactorily demonstrated that the average consumer’s reasonably anticipated rate of exposure to lead from their products fell below relevant regulatory thresholds. ELF appealed that ruling, but finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Environmental Law Found. v. Beech-Nut Nutrition" on Justia Law

The California Air Resources Board is charged with implementing the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. (Health & Saf. Code 38500). The Board’s mandate includes adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum “technologically feasible and cost effective” reductions in the emission of greenhouse gas (GHG) from sources or categories of sources subject to regulation under the terms of the Act. Objectors challenged the Board’s regulations implementing a market-based compliance mechanism for achieving reductions in GHG emissions: the “Cap-and-Trade” program. They argued that one component of the program, which affords offset credits for voluntary reductions in GHG emissions, violated the 2006 Act by failing to ensure that these credited reductions are “in addition to” any GHG emission reduction that is otherwise required by law or that would otherwise occur. The trial court rejected the argument. The court of appeal affirmed, noting the voluminous record summarizing the extensive evidence supporting the Board’s decision to adopt the Cap-and-Trade program regulation and to include offset credits as an integral component of that program and explaining the basis for the protocol and the additionality requirement applicable to that category of projects. View "Our Children's Earth Found. v. Cal. Air Res. Bd." on Justia Law

This issue this case presented for the Court of Appeal's review centered on a challenge under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) and approval of a project to build a new entertainment and sports center (ESC) in downtown Sacramento. The project, a partnership between the City of Sacramento (City) and Sacramento Basketball Holdings LLC to build a downtown arena at which Sacramento Kings would play. To facilitate the timely opening of a new downtown arena, the Legislature modified several deadlines under CEQA by adding section 21168.6.6 to the Public Resources Code. In a prior appeal, Adriana Saltonstall and 11 other petitioners argued section 21168.6.6 violated the constitutional separation of powers doctrine because the Legislature restricted the grounds on which the courts may issue a preliminary injunction to stay the downtown arena project. Saltonstall also argued the trial court erred by refusing to grant a preliminary injunction despite harm to the public and the environment due to demolition of part of the Downtown Plaza shopping mall and construction of the downtown arena in its place. The Court of Appeal concluded section 21168.6.6 did not violate separation of powers and the trial court properly denied Saltonstall’s request for a preliminary injunction. In this appeal, Saltonstall argued: (1) the City violated CEQA by committing itself to the downtown arena project before completing the EIR process; (2) the City’s EIR failed to consider remodeling the current Sleep Train Arena as a feasible alternative to building a new downtown arena; (3) the EIR did not properly study the effects of the project on interstate traffic traveling on the nearby section of Interstate Highway 5 (I-5); (4) the City did not account for large outdoor crowds expected to congregate outside the downtown arena during events; (5) the trial court erred in denying her Public Records Act request to the City to produce 62,000 e-mail communications with the NBA; and (6) the trial court erred in denying her motion to augment the administrative record with an e-mail between Assistant City Manager John Dangberg and a principal of Sacramento Basketball Holdings, Mark Friedman (the Dangberg-Friedman e-mail) and a 24-page report regarding forgiveness of a $7.5 million loan by the City to the Crocker Art Museum. After review, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment dismissing Saltonstall’s challenge to the sufficiency of the City’s EIR and approval of the downtown arena project, and (2) the trial court’s order denying her motion to augment the administrative record. View "Saltonstall v. City of Sacramento" on Justia Law

Defendant City of San Diego appealed a judgment granting the petition of plaintiff CREED-21 (CREED) for injunctive and other relief for violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) relating to emergency storm drainage repair and revegetation projects in La Jolla. The City argued: (1) the trial court erred by setting the CEQA baseline for the revegetation project prior to the issuance of a 2010 emergency permit for the emergency storm drain repair project; (2) the court erred by finding CREED had standing to challenge the prior CEQA emergency exemption for the emergency storm drain repair project; (3) City submitted substantial evidence to support its finding the regular permits for the revegetation project were exempt from CEQA; (4) CREED did not carry its burden to show an exception applied to the exemption for the revegetation project; (5) the court erred by finding CREED was denied due process of law when City did not timely disclose a document requested under the California Public Records Act (CPRA); and (6) the court erred by denying City's request for judicial notice and finding its appeal fee was unauthorized. After review, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court to the extent it declared City's assessment of the $100 appeal fee invalid and set it aside. In all other respects, the judgment was reversed and the matter was remanded to the trial court to: vacate its order granting the petition (except for its request for a refund of the appeal fee); withdraw, cancel, or otherwise void its peremptory writ of mandate (except for ordering City to refund the $100 appeal fee); and issue a new order denying the petition (except for granting its request for a refund of the appeal fee). View "CREED-21 v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law

California's Department of Fish and Wildlife chose to use a program environmental impact report (EIR) to analyze enterprises' impacts on a statewide basis. Instead of addressing impacts on specific locations the Department stocked, the EIR addressed the enterprise's continuing and potential impacts on individual species that could be located at many locations. The EIR formulated, and the Department adopted, protocols and plans for discovering site-specific impacts at each of the nearly 1,000 water bodies the Department stocks and the 24 hatcheries it oversaw, and it committed to mitigating the impacts discovered from those reviews. These appeals presented for the Court of Appeals' review questions of whether the EIR complied with the California Environmental Quality Act. Furthermore the Court also addressed whether the Department's imposition of these mitigation measures on private fish vendors violated the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA). In case Nos. C072486 and C073011, plaintiffs, Center for Biological Diversity and Californians for Alternatives to Toxics et al., respectively, argued the EIR was flawed because it: (1) did not perform site-specific review for each site in the state the Department stocks with fish; (2) deferred forming mitigation measures to the future formulation of protocols and management plans; (3) relied on the current stocking enterprise as the environmental baseline; and (4) did not review a reasonable range of alternatives, including a no project alternative consisting of ceasing all hatchery and stocking operations. The Court of Appeal disagreed with plaintiffs: given the history, nature, and scope of the project under review, the Department did not abuse its discretion in the manner it organized the EIR, analyzed the project, and mitigated its numerous impacts. In case No. C072790, plaintiff California Association for Recreational Fishing contended the Department violated the APA by imposing the qualification requirements and the monitoring and reporting obligations on private fish vendors without complying with the APA's notice and hearing procedures. The Court of Appeal concluded each measure qualified as a regulation under the APA that the Department did not properly adopt as such. The Court therefore reversed the trial court's judgment in that appeal. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife" on Justia Law

PaintCare and the American Coatings Association sought a writ of mandate, entered in favor of the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to invalidate regulations adopted to implement and enforce the Architectural Paint Recovery Program (Pub. Resources Code, 48700). They argued that CalRecycle did not have the authority to adopt regulations to implement and enforce the Program and, even if it had the authority, the regulations improperly enlarge the scope of the Program by setting requirements for manufacturers that go beyond the Program. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s rejection of the arguments. CalRecycle had authority to adopt the regulations, which do not go beyond the Program because they do not dictate how manufacturers comply with the Program. The regulations set forth what information manufacturers must provide to CalRecycle to comply with the Program. View "PaintCare v. Mortensen" on Justia Law