The state Supreme Court will review a case involving the awarding of attorneys' fees in a CEQA lawsuit.
The lawsuit involved a tie vote to certify an environmental impact report for a housing development in Orange County's Trabuco Canyon. With one member recusing himself, the Orange County Board of Supervisors voted 2-2 on the EIR. The county then proceeded on the grounds that the Planning Commission's certification of the EIR — which had been appealed to the Board of Supervisors — stood and no further review of the proposed project was necessary.
But the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that an EIR can be certified only with an affirmative vote; thus, the 2-2 vote was the same as taking no action and the project could not proceed until an EIR was approved (see CP&DR Legal Digest, January 2001).
After the appellate court decision, an Orange County Superior Court awarded the project opponents $400,000 in attorneys fees. The Fourth District overturned the award of fees, ruling that the lawsuit only sought clarification. The lawsuit did not meet the standard for awarding attorneys fees in such cases by enforcing an important public right or furthering important public policies, the court held.
Five state Supreme Court justices voted to review the case. The issue for review is narrow: What standard of review should an appellate court use in determining whether a lawsuit justified an award of attorneys' fees? The Fourth District applied a de novo standard, meaning the court provided a completely new review without deference to the lower court.
The case is Vedanta Society of Southern California v. County of Orange, No. S112816.
A takings lawsuit by Lake Tahoe area property owners against the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) has been tossed out by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals because the court had already ruled on the matter.
Placer County did not violate state law by including two projects in one environmental impact report, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. The county did not abuse it discretion by covering a 31-lot subdivision and a large church — which started out as two parts of the same project — in one EIR, the court held.
An environmental impact report for a proposed subdivision that would rely heavily on the State Water Project has been invalidated by the Second District Court of Appeal.
The EIR for the 2,500-unit West Creek project in Los Angeles County failed to say that deliveries by the State Water Project (SWP) are not reliable, and the study appeared to postpone a final decision on water until the subdivision approval process.
The California Coastal Commission did not have authority to modify a coastal development permit that the San Mateo County Superior Court had ordered the City of Half Moon Bay to approve, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled.
Claims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit.
The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law "plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court."
A state appellate court has upheld the California Coastal Commission's denial of a development permit for a small mixed-use project in Morro Bay.
The court rejected developer Dan Reddell's arguments that the commission violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that its decision was a regulatory taking of property. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that substantial evidence supported the commission's finding that Reddell's project was inconsistent with Morro Bay's local coastal plan (LCP).
A state appellate court has thrown out an Inyo County general plan amendment that the county argued was nothing more than a clarification of a longstanding policy.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, concluded that the amendment was more than a mere clarification and that the county should have completed an environmental impact report before approving the amendment.
A City of West Hollywood moratorium on new multi-family housing development has been declared invalid by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the city had not made required findings for the moratorium.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set back a plan to develop the country's largest solid waste landfill near Joshua Tree National Park. The court ruled that the environmental analysis for the project was inadequate and that the Bureau of Land Management undervalued land it would provide to the landfill developer.
A state appellate court has struck down a California Environmental Quality Act exemption for an air district rule permitting new power plants to offset emissions by paving roads. The court found that the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District did not have adequate evidence to support its finding that the rule could not have a negative impact on the environment.
A developer is not entitled to reimbursement or damages from a consultant hired by a local government to complete an environmental impact report, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. Even when the consultant fails to complete an EIR in a timely manner, the consultant owes no contractual duty to the developer that paid for the consultant, the court concluded.
