Welcome to “CEQA News You Can Use,” a quarterly production of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP’s Natural Resources lawyers. This publication provides quick, useful bites of CEQA news, which we hope can be a resource to your real-time business decisions. That said, it is not and cannot be construed to be legal advice. Enjoy!
Failing to comply with summons requirement under Subdivision Map Act undercuts CEQA claims
In March 2022, Los Angeles County approved a residential subdivision in an unincorporated area of the Santa Clarita Valley. Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE) sued, alleging violations under CEQA and the Subdivision Map Act. Since SCOPE failed to comply with the Map Act’s requirement to serve a summons within 90 days of project approval, however, the trial court dismissed the petition, finding the Map Act and CEQA claims so intertwined and that both must be barred. In SCOPE v. County of Los Angeles (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1143, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed in part. Although the Map Act summons requirement barred SCOPE’s CEQA claim challenging the adequacy of the mitigated negative declaration’s mitigation program since it was a “condition” of the approved vesting tentative map, the court concluded SCOPE’s remaining CEQA claims were not barred because they could not have been brought under the Map Act and approval of the vesting tentative map was contingent upon the county’s compliance with CEQA. Given the difficulty of determining whether CEQA challenges to an approved subdivision must comply with the Map Act’s summons requirement, however, the court cautioned that “petitioners challenging approval of a tentative or final map proceed at their peril” if they fail to serve a summons.
AB 1307 in action—private residential noise is not a CEQA impact when dealing with the infill categorical exemption
Reversing a prior holding, in West Adams Heritage Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 395, the Second District Court of Appeal applied AB 1307 and the Supreme Court’s decision in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (see CEQA News, vol. 9, issue 2), to find that noise impacts did not prevent the city from approving a residential project near the University of Southern California with the Class 32 infill categorical exemption. Per AB 1307, noise generated by occupants and guests of a residential project cannot be considered a significant effect on the environment. Make UC a Good Neighbor held that a student housing project need not consider noise from student residents. In reconsidering the case, the court rejected arguments that AB 1307 (1) did not apply to amplified sounds like music, (2) did not apply to a private development project, and (3) only applied to EIRs and negative declarations. Nonetheless, the court found the city failed to assess the project’s consistency with the applicable redevelopment plan and sent the matter back to the city.
Sixth District confirms CEQA’s infill exemption cannot be undercut by how CEQA defines similar terms elsewhere
In Working Families of Monterey County v. King City Planning Commission (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 833, petitioners challenged King City’s use of the infill categorical exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15332), which exempts projects “within city limits on a ... site ... substantially surrounded by urban uses,” for a Grocery Outlet on a former used car lot. Petitioners argued that because Section 15332 does not define key terms like “in-fill site” or “substantially surrounded by qualified urban uses,” those terms should be governed by how CEQA defines “infill site,” “urbanized area” and “qualified urban uses” (see CEQA Sections 21061.3, 21071, and 21072, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15387). Applying standard rules of interpretation, the Sixth District rejected the appeal, finding Section 15332 was not intended only for projects that met the definitions of “infill site,” “urbanized area” and “qualified urban uses”—terms absent from Section 15332. Instead, Section 15332 is intended to reduce sprawl by exempting certain development typical in urban areas. Additionally, “surrounded by urban uses” cannot be construed to mean “urbanized area” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15387) since courts presume different meanings by use of different phrases.
Repeated requests for disability accommodation properly denied where delay would alter judicial priority for CEQA case
Although it may not feel like it sometimes to CEQA litigants, CEQA cases are entitled to priority consideration in the courts. In Friends of the South Fork Gualala v. Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection (2024) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, 2024 WL 4865102, the First District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s denial of a seventh extension request from a lawyer representing an environmental group for disability accommodations under California Rule of Court 1.100 due to his bipolar disorder. The accommodations requested included extensions of time for briefing deadlines and relief from procedural obligations in a case challenging the approval of a timber harvest plan by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). The trial court had previously granted six similar requests over eight months but denied the seventh. In response to arguments that the denial prevented a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue, the First District emphasized that the trial court had already granted multiple extensions and further delays would create an undue burden, fundamentally altering the nature of the expedited CEQA proceeding.
Court issues fiery rebuke to EIR’s wildfire analysis
In People ex rel. Bonta v. County of Lake (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222, the First District Court of Appeal considered petitioners’ challenge to the county’s approval of a residential and luxury resort project on 16,000 acres of largely undeveloped land. Petitioners took aim at the project EIR’s allegedly flawed analysis of wildfire, greenhouse gas and groundwater impacts, among other things. While the court largely rejected these arguments, it agreed with petitioners that the EIR’s wildfire analysis was insufficient. The EIR failed to disclose the project’s impact to wildfire risks on the project site, and the county’s attempt to correct the failure with an “errata” a week before the hearing could not correct the deficiency. The court also rejected the county’s argument that the project “Wildfire Plan” would ensure impacts would be less than significant. Instead, the EIR itself was required to analyze potential project impacts and then disclose how those impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
Wine not: Court of Appeals tells vintners while upholding Los Angeles County’s North Area Plan amendment
In 2020, Los Angeles County approved a comprehensive update to the land use plan for the Santa Monica Mountains North Area. When adopting the plan, however, the county decided to ban all new vineyards rather than heavily regulating them as originally proposed and analyzed in the EIR. A local vintner and the Malibu Coast Vintners and Grape Growers Alliance challenged this 11th-hour change as violating CEQA’s requirement that the EIR’s project description remain accurate, stable and finite. In Gooden v. County of Los Angeles (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1, the Second District Court of Appeal held that because the portion of the North Area Plan dedicated to agricultural use was very small (one-half page of the 91-page plan), the switch from heavy regulation to a total ban on new vineyards did not alter the plan’s nature or any of its main features. (Notably, petitioners abandoned their claim that the change required recirculation of a draft EIR, so the court did not reach that issue.) Accordingly, the county was not required to reboot the CEQA review process.
From all of us here at Brownstein, we wish you and yours a joyous and safe Happy New Year!
This document is intended to provide you with general information regarding CEQA-related updates. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. If you have any questions about the contents of this document or if you need legal advice as to an issue, please contact the attorneys listed or your regular Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP attorney. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. The information in this article is accurate as of the publication date. Because the law in this area is changing rapidly, and insights are not automatically updated, continued accuracy cannot be guaranteed.