• Skip to main content
  • Home
  • Contact
  • About
  • Search
    • Search US
    • Search Global
  • Global Litigation
  • U.S. Litigation

California Native Plant Society v. County of San Diego

Filing Date: 2018
Case Categories:
  • State Law Claims
    • State Impact Assessment Laws
Principal Laws:
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Planning and Zoning Law
Description: Challenge to San Diego County approvals for residential and commercial development project.
  • California Native Plant Society v. County of San Diego
    Docket number(s): 37-2018-00054559-CU-TT-CTL
    Court/Admin Entity: Cal. Super. Ct.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    10/26/2018 Petition for Writ of Mandate Download Petition for writ of mandate and complaint filed. Challengers of San Diego Development Project Alleged Failures to Disclose Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Wildfire Risk. Environmental and other nonprofit organizations and community groups, along with a number of individuals and a spa company that “emphasizes harmony with the environment in focusing on the health and fitness of its guests,” filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court challenging San Diego County’s approvals for a residential and commercial project. The petition described the project as involving construction of 2,135 residential units and 81,000 square feet of commercial uses “in a mostly undeveloped, Very High Severity fire hazard area in a rural, unincorporated area of the County located far from transit infrastructure and job centers.” The petitioners asserted claims under the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, and County regulatory and zoning ordinances, California and U.S. constitutional violations, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The petitioners contended, among other claims, that the County approved the project despite having been enjoined from relying on a greenhouse gas mitigation measure in the County’s Climate Action Plan that was “essentially the same” as a mitigation measure for the project. The petitioners asserted that the County “failed to disclose, discuss, or analyze the cumulative effects on energy consumption and environmental justice of permitting in-County [greenhouse gas] emissions and [vehicle miles traveled] in exchange for carbon offsets that would reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions in other places of the world.” The petitioners also asserted that the County “failed to account for the increasing prevalence and severity of wildfires” due to “climate change and other climatic changes.”

© 2023 · Sabin Center for Climate Change Law · U.S. Litigation Chart made in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

The materials on this website are intended to provide a general summary of the law and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.