Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

United Water Conservation District (“District”) manages the groundwater resources in Ventura County. City of San Buenaventura (“City)” pumps groundwater from the District’s territory and sells it to residential and commercial customers.   The District collects a fee from the city by applying a fixed ratio of rates for nonagricultural users, such as the City, who pump groundwater for municipal and industrial (M&I) uses. The District charged such users three times more than agricultural (also known as “Ag”) users in accordance with Water Code section 75594.   The City filed its complaint for determination of invalidity and declaratory relief and petition for writ of mandate. The City alleged section 75594 is facially unconstitutional because the groundwater extraction rates charged for the water year 2019-2020 were not allocated to the City and other M&I users in a manner that bears a reasonable relationship to the City’s burdens on or benefits from the District’s activities.   The Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s judgment and held that the groundwater extraction charge is invalid as to nonagricultural users and must be set aside and section 75594 violates the California Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. The threshold issue concerned the applicable standard of review. The court held that District’s rates for the 2019-2020 Water Year do not comply with proposition 26. The court reasoned that the constitutional requirement of a ‘fair or reasonable relationship’ is not resolved by application of a rigid judicial standard nor by application of a deferential standard of substantial evidence. View "City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation Dist." on Justia Law

Martha owns the largest undeveloped parcel of property in the vicinity of Tiburon, 110 acres on top of a mountain, overlooking much of the town and commanding a stunning view of San Francisco Bay. For decades, Martha has sought approval from the County of Marin to develop the property. Local opposition has been intense, including federal court litigation, starting in 1975 and resulting in stipulated judgments in 1976 and 2007. The county twice publicly agreed to approve Martha building no fewer than 43 units on the property. In 2017, the county certified an environmental impact report and conditionally approved Martha’s master plan for 43 single-family residences. The county believed its actions were compelled by the stipulated judgments.The town and residents sued, claiming that the county effectively agreed it would not follow or enforce state law, specifically, the California Environmental Quality Act, to prevent the development of an anticipated project. The court of appeal upheld the approvals. Governmental powers are indefeasible and inalienable; they cannot be surrendered, suspended, contracted away, waived, or otherwise divested. Government cannot bind the hands of its successors. In this case, the county did not abdicate its authority or otherwise undertake not to comply with CEQA. “With its eyes wide open,” the county complied with a binding, final judgment; that judgment in no way anticipated or legitimated ignoring CEQA. View "Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin" on Justia Law

Crystal Geyser Water Company bought a closed water bottling facility and sought to revive it. Both the County and the City ultimately granted the necessary permits. This appeal concerned one of two lawsuits challenging these approvals, brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In one suit, Appellants We Advocate Thorough Environmental Review and Winnehem Wintu Tribe alleged that the County’s environmental review for the bottling facility was inadequate under CEQA. In another, they alleged that the City’s decision to issue the wastewater permit for the bottling plant was also improper under CEQA. In this case, the County served as the lead agency and considered the potential environmental impacts of permitting the bottling facility before it or any other public agency issued a permit for the facility. But in Appellants’ view, the County’s analysis was inadequate. Appellants alleged the County: (1) provided a misleading description of the project; (2) defined the project’s objectives in an impermissibly narrow manner; (3) improperly evaluated the project’s impacts to aesthetics, air quality, climate change, noise, and hydrology; and (4) approved the project even though it would result in violations of the County’s and the City’s general plans. The trial court rejected all Appellants’ arguments. But the Court of Appeal found two contentions had merit: (1) the County defined the project’s objectives in an overly narrow manner; and (2) the process for evaluating the project’s impacts to climate change was flawed. Relevant to this point, the County initially informed the public that the bottling project would result in greenhouse gas emissions of one amount, but, after the period for public comments had ended, the County disclosed that the project would actually result in emissions nearly double what it initially estimated. Under the circumstances of this case, the appellate court found the County should have allowed the public further opportunity to comment on the project after this late disclosure. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "We Advocate Through etc. v. County of Siskiyou" on Justia Law

Crystal Geyser Water Company bought a closed water bottling facility and sought to revive it. Both the County and the City ultimately granted the necessary permits. This appeal concerned one of two lawsuits challenging these approvals, brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In one suit, Appellants We Advocate Thorough Environmental Review and Winnehem Wintu Tribe alleged that the County’s environmental review for the bottling facility was inadequate under CEQA. In another, they alleged that the City’s decision to issue the wastewater permit for the bottling plant was also improper under CEQA. The Court of Appeal addressed Appellants’ challenge to the City’s approval of the wastewater permit. The County served as the lead agency and the City served as one of several responsible agencies for the proposed bottling facility. According to Appellants, the City failed to comply with its obligations as a responsible agency for three reasons: (1) the City failed to make certain findings that were required under CEQA before issuing the wastewater permit for the bottling facility; (2) the City should have adopted mitigation measures to address some of the bottling facility’s environmental impacts before approving the permit; and (3) the City should have performed additional environmental review following a late revision to the permit. The trial court rejected all Appellants’ arguments. But the Court of Appeal agreed with Appellants on one point: The City should have made certain findings under CEQA before issuing the wastewater permit. Apart from needing to make one or more of these findings for each significant impact, the City also needed to supply a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The City, however, never complied with these requirements. “It instead, in a single sentence, said only this: The City has reviewed the County’s report on the project and ‘finds no unmitigated adverse environmental impacts relating to the alternate waste discharge disposal methods.’” Because the Court found this brief statement inadequate to satisfy CEQA, judgment was reversed. View "We Advocate Through Environmental Review v. City of Mt. Shasta" on Justia Law

The plaintiff Kern Water Bank Authority Conservation (“KWBA”), is a public agency consisting of five water districts. KWBA operates Kern Water Bank ("KWB"). Surface water from various sources, including the Kern River, is diverted onto land owned by the KWBA to recharge the KWB. In dry years, KWBA recovers water from the KWB. The defendant Buena is a water storage district located within Kern County.The Kern Water Bank Project ("the Project") was proposed by KWBA and is designed “to directly divert up to 500,000 [acre-feet-per-year] from the Kern River within the KWB through existing diversion works and recharge facilities located on the KWB lands, and/or to deliver water directly to KWBA’s participating members’ service areas via [existing canals]. KWBA prepared an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) to evaluate the Project's environmental impacts. At issue on appeal is whether: (1) the Project descriptions of Project water and existing water rights satisfied The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requirements; (2) a complete quantification of existing Kern River water rights was not required; and (3) the EIR properly evaluated the environmental impacts. The appellate court found the EIR complied with CEQA requirements by inadequately assessing long-term recovery operations on groundwater levels. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that there will not be a significant impact on groundwater levels because the Project will not increase long-term recovery beyond historical (baseline) operations. The appellate court reversed the district court’s judgment and ruled that defendant shall recover costs on appeal. View "Buena Vista Wat. Storage Dist. v. Kern Wat. Bank Authority" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the approval of a commercial and residential development in the Panorama City neighborhood of Los Angeles, principally arguing that the City approved a project not described in the draft or final environmental impact reports (EIRs).The Court of Appeal reversed the superior court's judgment, agreeing with the City and Icon that the City's EIRs contained a sufficiently accurate, stable and finite project description under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The court agreed with the City's arguments that consideration of additional alternatives after a draft EIR is circulated does not render a project description unstable. In this case, the DEIR contained all the mandatory elements under CEQA, including a general description of the project’s characteristics (including environmental impacts), its objectives, and its intended uses. Furthermore, the City's response to the comment regarding local sewer capacity was adequate given the nature of the proposed development. Finally, the court concluded that the revised Alternative 5 did not require recirculation, and the City's response to LASAN's comment was adequate. View "Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

In 2011, Lafferty sought to develop 76 homes on a 31.7-acre Garaventa Hills site in Livermore. A 2012 draft environmental impact report recognized that any alterations to existing drainage patterns may affect the quantity, timing, and quality of precipitation needed to maintain a functioning ecosystem. There was considerable opposition to Lafferty’s proposal. Lafferty reduced the number of residential units to 47, eliminated a vehicular bridge over Altamont Creek, and preserved a large rock outcropping. The final environmental impact report (FEIR) was released in 2014. The planning commission recommended that the city reject Lafferty’s second proposal. The city council declined to certify the FEIR. In 2017, Lafferty proposed a smaller-scale project with 44 new residences. According to the reissued FEIR (RFEIR), the project would result in the permanent removal of 31.78 acres of grasslands with an additional 1.18 acres being temporarily disturbed for construction; various mitigation measures were proposed, including the acquisition of an 85-acre compensatory mitigation site. The city certified the RFEIR and approved the Project.Opponents filed suit under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code 2100). The court of appeal reversed and remanded. Opponents raised a challenge to the adequacy of the RFEIR’s analysis of the “no project” alternative that is both preserved for appeal and meritorious. View "Save the Hill Group v. City of Livermore" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's finding that KWBA's environmental impact report (EIR) was inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The court agreed with KWBA that the Kern Water Bank Authority Conservation and Storage Project descriptions of Project water and existing water rights satisfied CEQA requirements; a complete quantification of existing Kern River water rights was not required; and the EIR properly evaluated the environmental impacts of long-term recovery operations on existing rights and groundwater levels. View "Buena Vista Water Storage District v. Kern Water Bank Authority" on Justia Law

Appellants Monterey Coastkeeper (Coastkeeper) and others were dissatisfied with how the respondent State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and the regional water boards, including respondent Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Coast Board), controlled water pollution resulting from agricultural runoff through the permitting process. Appellants filed an action seeking, among other things a declaratory judgment and writ of traditional mandamus regarding the water permits governed under Water Code section 13300. Specifically, the third cause of action in their first amended complaint sought traditional mandamus and declaratory relief regarding respondents’ alleged failure to comply with the State Board’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Policy (NPS Policy) in the permitting process, while the fourth cause of action sought traditional mandamus directing the State Board to comply with the public trust doctrine. They appealed when the trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend their third and fourth causes of action, contending the trial court erred regarding both the NPS Policy and public trust doctrine, and erred in denying them leave to amend the complaint. The Court of Appeal determined declaratory relief was not available because appellants failed to present a controversy susceptible to definitive and conclusive relief by declaratory judgment, and they did not identify a clear rule that was ignored or improperly applied. "Mandamus is likewise unauthorized as appellants attack respondents’ exercise of discretion rather than a failure to perform a ministerial duty or a quasi-legislative action. Since appellants assert no more than an abstract right to amend, it was within the trial court’s discretion to dismiss without leave to amend." View "Monterey Coastkeeper v. Central Coast Reg. Wat. Quality Control Bd." on Justia Law

The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Pub. Resources Code 30000) requires a coastal development permit (CDP) for any “development” resulting in a change in the intensity of use of, or access to, land or water in a coastal zone. In December 2018, Los Angeles adopted the Home-Sharing Ordinance, imposing restrictions on short-term vacation rentals, with mechanisms to enforce those restrictions. Objectors sought to enjoin enforcement of the Ordinance in the Venice coastal zone until the city obtains a CDP, claiming the Ordinance constituted a “development” requiring a CDP.The trial court denied relief, finding the petition time-barred by the 90-day statute of limitations in Government Code section 65009, and that the Ordinance does not create a change in intensity of use and, therefore, is not a “development” requiring a CDP. The court of appeal affirmed, agreeing that the 90-day statute of limitations applies, rather than the three-year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 338(a). The court did not address whether the Ordinance constitutes a “development” subject to the CDP requirements of the Coastal Act. View "Coastal Act Protectors v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law