Friends of the South Fork Gualala v. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Sept.…

This procedural case related to the trial court’s granting of a writ setting aside a timber harvest plan for failure to fully address geological, biological, and cultural resource impacts. In its writ, the court denied Friends of the South Fork Gualala’s (FSFG’s) claim that the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s (CalFire’s) late publication of a full set of written responses to public comments should be a further ground to vacate approval of the timber harvest plan.

FSFG challenged this denial. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision. The following is the Court’s concise description of the challenge and its determination.

Unsatisfied with the scope of its victory due to the ruling for CalFire on this one issue, FSFG now appeals on the ground that the trial court denied it a full and fair opportunity to litigate the completeness and validity of the Official Response, which it characterizes as not only tardy but intentionally false. According to FSFG, the trial court erroneously denied a request from its counsel, Daniel Garrett-Steinman, for 1) more time to prepare a supplemental brief addressing defects in the Official Response; 2) leave to file a supplemental brief in support of its request for issue sanctions; 3) an order relieving Garrett-Steinman from the obligation to engage in further meet-and-confer activity; and 4) a continuance of the merits hearing on its mandate petition.

All of these requests—for leave to file supplemental briefing, for relief from meet-andconfer obligations, and for a continuance of the merits hearing—were made in the form of an application for disability accommodation under rule 1.100. Citing the broad applicability of rule 1.100 to “any lawyer, party, witness, juror, or other person with an interest in attending any proceeding before any court of this state” (rule 1.100(a)(2)), Garrett-Steinman sought relief based on his bipolar disorder. Because the trial court was presented with an uncontested, qualifying disability (rule 1.100(a)(1)) from a person entitled to invoke the protections of rule 1.100, FSFG contends the court had no choice but to grant the requested accommodation. We decline to endorse such a wooden application of rule 1.100. At issue here is the last in a series of seven requests for scheduling relief over the course of eight months by either FSFG directly or by its counsel Garrett-Steinman, all of which were based on Garrett-Steinman’s bipolar disorder. Six prior requests were actually or in effect granted. The court’s grant of relief on the previous six occasions simply

xxix

Association of Environmental Professionals 2025

Summary of Key 2024 CEQA Court Cases

led to more accommodation requests and stalled progress toward final resolution of the case. CEQA actions have statutory calendaring priority and must be “quickly heard and determined.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.1.) Having filed a proceeding subject to calendaring priority, FSFG was obliged to move the case forward with dispatch. We have no trouble concluding that, in the circumstances presented here, the court was within its discretion to deny a seventh request for postponement.