The following listing of published cases is available for review on the AEP CEQA Portal as of September 13, 2024.
Planning and Conservation League, et al v. Department of Water Resources (2024) (January 5, 2024)
The Third District Court of Appeal upheld trial court’s judgment upholding the EIR and rejected baseline, segmentation, impact analyses, project description, alternatives, and recirculation challenges to the EIR for the Department of Water Resources’ approval of amendments to long-term water supply contracts through 2085.
Delia Guerrero et al. v. City of Los Angeles (January 17, 2024)
The Second District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court judgment overturning a mitigated negative declaration for a 42-single family home project as the litigation was filed outside of the statute of limitations.
Hilltop Group. Inc., et al v. County of San Diego (February 16, 2024)
The Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the San Diego County Board of Supervisors committed a prejudice abuse of discretion in granting project opponents' appeals of the Planning Commission’s decision upholding County’s use of the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 exemption for a construction debris and inert materials recycling facility project.
V Lions Farming, LLC v. County of Kern (March 7, 2024)
The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment and held that agricultural conservation easements qualify as legally permissible “compensatory mitigation” for agricultural-land conversion impacts under CEQA.
Save our Capitol, Save the Trees v. Department of General Services (March 18, 2024)
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order discharging the peremptory writ of mandate that was issued following the Court of Appeal’s earlier direction in Save Our Capitol! v. Department of General Services (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 655, 711.
Vichy Springs Resort, Inc. v. City of Ukiah (March 29, 2024)
The First District Court of Appeals held that the CEQA challenge to shooting range project on city-owned land in unincorporated county was not mooted by project’s construction during trial court proceedings.
Made UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (June 6, 2024)
The California Supreme Court upheld the Regents’ 2021 Long-Range Development Plan EIR against claims of failure to analyze noise and alternative locations, thus clearing the legal path for UC Berkeley's residential development of the People’s Park site.
Nahid Nassiri v. City of Lafayette, et al. (July 28, 2024)
The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying a writ petition challenging the City of Lafayette’s use of the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 categorical exemption for a 12-unit residential condominium project on a 0.3-acre parcel. The court held that evidence supported the City’s findings that the site had no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, and no significant air quality impacts would occur.
Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. County of San Benito, et al. (August 6, 2024)
The Sixth District Court of Appeal found that the petitioners were required to appeal the Planning Commission’s approval to the Board of Supervisors in order to exhaust their available administrative remedies under the County’s Code. Thus, the Notice of Determination (NOD) filed after the final action of the Board of Supervisors that served to trigger the CEQA statute of limitations, not the NOD on the Planning Commission’s action on the project.
Sunflower Alliance v. California Department of Conservation, et al. (September 6, 2024)
The First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment granting a writ of mandate and upheld the use of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 categorical exemption by the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Geologic Energy Management in approving a project proposing to convert an oil/water well into an injection well.
California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition v. State Air Resources Board (2024) (September 24, 2024)
The Fifth District Court of Appeal upheld the judgment denying a writ petition that challenged the State Air Resources Board's (CARB) adoption of the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation (Regulation) on CEQA and Administrative Procedures Act.
Yolo Land and Water Defense, et al v. County of Yolo, et al (October 3, 2024)
The Third District Court of Appeal upheld an award of reasonable record preparation costs prevailing lead agency County of Yolo in a CEQA action unsuccessfully challenging a sand and gravel mining permit and reclamation project. The Court concludes that the trial court properly awarded the County reasonable administrative record preparation costs.
Save Our Capitol! v. Department of General Services (Joint Committee on Rules of the California State Senate and Assembly) (October 7, 2024)
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment rejecting a CEQA challenge to the revised EIR for the State Capitol renovation project based on recent legislation, SB 174, exempting that project from CEQA.
Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment et al v. County of Los Angeles (October 21, 2024)
The Second District Court of Appeal reversed a judgment by the trial court related to the application of statute of limitations. The Court held that judgment on the pleadings was improper as to the CEQA claim because Government Code Section 66499.37 statute of limitation requiring filing within 90 days in subdivision-related actions, could not completely dispose of that cause of action.
John M. Gooden v. County of Los Angeles (October 24, 2024)
The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment denying a writ petition in a CEQA action challenging the County of Los Angeles' adoption of an update to its North Area Plan and Community Standards District, the general plan and zoning provisions governing the Santa Monica Mountains North Area, and its associated EIR. The Court applied a new subjective standard test de novo.
West Adams Heritage Association et al. v. City of Los Angeles (October 31, 2024)
The Second District Court of Appeal held that noise from residents congregating on a University of Southern California area residential housing project's rooftop decks "do[es] not constitute a significant environmental effect impeding the application of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 exemption, including consideration of the unusual circumstance exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c).
Working Families of Monterey County v. King City Planning Commission (November 18, 2024)
The Sixth District Court of Appeal interpreted the provisions CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 regarding infill projects that meet specified criteria, including being "substantially surrounded by urban uses." The Court rejected the argument that "substantially surrounded by urban uses" was to be interpreted by a population standard. Instead, the Court determined that interpretation could be broadened.
People of the State of California ex rel. Bonta v. County of Lake (November 22, 2024)
The First District Court of Appeal addressed significant CEQA issues relating to wildfire risk, GHG emissions, and water supply impacts specifically regarding the development of Lake County Resort. The Court reversed the trial court's decision that the EIR adequately disclosed the project's impact on increasing the area's existing wildfire risks.