The Otay Ranch Village 13 project, located on over 1,800 acres near the Lower Otay Reservoir, was originally proposed with inadequate mitigation for impacts to endangered species on-site, wildfire and evacuation risk, and GHG emissions. When the County’s Board of Supervisors approved the project in 2020, the environmental groups sued the County alleging violations of the California Environmental Quality Act.
​
Under the settlement agreement, the development will now be limited to a smaller footprint than originally proposed, which allows for the provision of nearly 300 acres of open space on the project site to protect biological resources. The settlement agreement further requires all buildings to be 100% electric and the developer to pay $15 million to a local GHG mitigation bank to reduce GHG emissions in the County. To address wildfire risks, the developer has committed to widening Otay Lakes Road at an earlier date, and installing fire safety and fire detection infrastructure. Dave Hogan, Legal Committee Chair of the Sierra Club San Diego Chapter, stated, “This settlement proves that we don’t have to choose between housing and environmental protection. It ensures a better balance of protection of our special nature with homes for people.”

This revised project was approved by the City Council in early December 2024. Other positive results of the settlement agreement and revised project include restoration of coastal sage scrub in the on-site preserve and maintenance of the gnatcatcher population in and around Batiquitos Lagoon.
 
The full press release in the “Endangered Habitats League Newsletter” can be viewed below.

The proposed plant, which would have stored hazardous, volatile, and explosive materials within 300 feet of the nearest residence, faced strong opposition from the local community. The lawsuit, filed in March 2024, challenged the Tulare County Board of Supervisors’ use of a ministerial exemption to bypass environmental review under CEQA.
Key outcomes of the settlement include rescission of all permits and approvals for the hydrogen plant project and requirement for notice to be given to the plaintiffs if any future development is proposed for the site.
​
“It is shocking that Tulare County approved a massive project that will be using poisonous and explosive materials in an area not zoned for that use through an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act,” said Josh Chatten-Brown, Chatten-Brown Law Group managing partner. “We are glad to have reached an agreement that required the County to rescind its approval and will require provision of notice to our clients if the applicant submits a new application for the project.”

​The McClellan-Palomar Airport was annexed to the County of San Diego in 1978, which allowed for the County to operate the airport in Carlsbad. The airport was operated pursuant to the County’s Conditional Use Permit, which required the County to seek an amendment if the airport was ever to be expanded. Citizens for a Friendly Airport raised concerns that the language of the City’s ordinances left a loophole through which the County could continually expand extend or realign the runways without amending the Conditional Use Permit, allowing larger aircraft to operate at the airport without undertaking the necessary review. CBLG’s comments specifically detailed the necessary revisions to the City’s codes that would allow for City Council to review any additional extensions of the runway.

​In response to concerns raised by the Carlsbad community, including Citizens for a Friendly Airport, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. CS-479, which clarifies that the definition of “airport expansion” includes the extension or realignment of an existing runway or the construction of a new runway. Any future expansion of the runway at McClellan-Palomar will now require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, as well as additional environmental review and community outreach.

Prior to the City Council hearing, Chatten-Brown Law Group submitted written comments on behalf of concerned community members and residents of Anaheim Hills, extensively detailing the project’s violations of the California Environmental Quality Act and the impropriety of SALT’s conduct, including SALT’s thinly veiled threats and attempts to force the City to approve the project without exercising its lawful discretion. This comment letter was one of many submitted to the City Council, which ultimately concluded that the safety risks were too severe. Councilwoman Natalie Meeks stated, “Safety needs to be our highest priority. It’s not the right place. It’s a severe fire hazard zone, and you can’t put that many people there and it really is only one way out.” Another Councilwoman, Natalie Rubalcava, added, “I don’t really take kindly to threats.”

The City Council’s vote affirmed both the responsibility and ability of local governments to deny Projects that will create dangerous conditions to health and safety, especially in very high fire severity areas with constrained evacuation routes.

​After months of negotiations, our client PQ-NE Action Group reached a settlement with Lennar Homes. The settlement addresses concerns raised during the litigation, including additional evacuation routes in the wildfire-prone area, and provides several community benefits.

The settlement will result in the construction of a roundabout, application to construct an additional residential road to improve evacuation and transportation in the community, and expansion of the Junipers public park, among other terms.

The PQ-NE Action Group Press Release can be viewed below.