Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Dynamic Development, LLC (Dynamic) sought to build a new retail store (Project) in Joshua Tree. Residents of Joshua Tree vociferously opposed the Project. They argued that it would clash with the town’s artistic, independent, and rural character; they also argued that it would cause various adverse environmental impacts, including urban decay. Nevertheless, the County of San Bernardino (County) found that an environmental impact report (EIR) was not required and approved the Project. The Joshua Tree Downtown Business Alliance (Alliance) then filed this mandate proceeding challenging the County’s approval of the Project. The trial court agreed there was substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project could cause urban decay; it therefore issued a writ of mandate directing the County to set aside its approval of the Project. Dynamic appealed. The Alliance cross-appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by rejecting its other contentions. After review, the Court of Appeal held that the Alliance failed to establish any grounds for a writ of mandate. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment was reversed. View "Joshua Tree Downtown Bus. Alliance v. Co. of San Bernardino" 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

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

The court of appeal previously remanded the suit, concerning the rights to groundwater contained in the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin. The parties are landowners who extract groundwater for agricultural use and public water producers that pump groundwater for municipal and industrial use. The court of appeal directed the trial court to quiet title to the landlowners’ overlying rights to native groundwater by declaring that these rights have priority over all appropriators, less the amount that the public producers are entitled to pursuant to their prescriptive rights. The trial court amended its judgment to hold that the city had established a total prescriptive right of 5100 acre feet per year and Golden State Water Company had established a total prescriptive right of 1900 acre feet per year, both perfected against the Basin aquifer as a whole, so only a proportionate amount of the prescriptive right could be exercised against the landowners’ overlying rights. The court did not quantify the proportionate prescriptive rights nor reconsider its prevailing party determination or allocation of costs. The court of appeal affirmed, holding that the trial court properly quieted title and did not err when it declined to reconsider the prevailing party determination. View "City of Santa Maria v. Adam" on Justia Law

Five days after Stewart obtained a building permit to construct a crematorium on a site in East Oakland, the City Council passed an emergency ordinance requiring a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate new crematoria. The Planning Commission denied Stewart's administrative appeal that the emergency ordinance applied to its proposed crematorium. Stewart then filed suit against the City, alleging administrative-mandamus claims. The trial court granted one of Stewart’s claims petitioning for writ of administrative mandamus, ruling that Stewart had a vested right in the building permit based on a preexisting local ordinance and that the emergency ordinance was not sufficiently necessary to the public welfare to justify an impairment of that right. The court rejected the City's argument that Stewart had no vested right; that even if Stewart had a vested right, it was not impaired; and that even if Stewart had a vested right that was impaired, the impairment was supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence of a danger or nuisance to the public that justified the City’s application of the emergency ordinance to Stewart’s project and affirmed the judgment. View "Stewart Enter. v. City of Oakland" 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

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. appealed a judgment entered in favor of the Spring Valley Lake Association (Association) determining the City of Victorville failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Planning and Zoning Law when the City approved the Tamarisk Marketplace Project. Wal-Mart argued to the Court of Appeal that the judgment should have been reversed because, contrary to the court's decision, there was substantial evidence to support the City's finding the project was consistent with the general plan and the project's environmental impact report (EIR) adequately analyzed the project's greenhouse gas emissions impacts. The Association cross-appealed, contending the Court should have reversed the judgment because the City violated CEQA by failing to recirculate the EIR after the City revised the traffic and circulation impacts analysis, air quality impacts analysis, hydrology and water quality impacts analysis, and biological resources impacts analysis. The Association also contended the City violated the Planning and Zoning Law by failing to make all of the findings required by Government Code section 66474 before approving the project's parcel map. Upon review, the Court of Appeal disagreed with Wal-Mart's contentions and partially agreed with the Association's contentions. Consequently, the Court affirmed the judgment as to the issues raised in Wal-Mart's appeal, reversed the judgment as to certain of the issues raised in the Association's appeal, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "Spring Valley Lake Assn. v. City of Victorville" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant People for Proper Planning (PFPP) appealed the denial of its petition for peremptory writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief filed against defendants-respondents City of Palm Springs and Palm Springs City Council (collectively referred to as City). In its petition, PFPP challenged the City’s adoption of Resolution No. 23415, which approved an Amendment to the City’s General Plan removing the minimum density requirements for each residential development. The trial court denied PFPP’s challenge, contending that the Amendment: (1) was not exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it was not a minor land use alteration; (2) was inconsistent with the General Plan such that it now makes the General Plan internally inconsistent; and (3) violated statutory requirements that the City accommodate its fair share of regional housing needs for all income levels, including low and very low income levels. The Court of Appeal determined the Amendment was not exempted from CEQA requirements, and thus, reversed the judgment. In light of this determination, the Court did not address the other issues raised by PFPP. View "People for Proper Planning v. City of Palm Springs" 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