INTRODUCTION

In this action brought by two environmental organizations under the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) to challenge

a city’s approval of a warehouse project, the trial court entered a Judgment Granting

Peremptory Writ of Mandate on December 8, 2023 (the “Judgment” or “Writ”), which

the warehouse developer appealed. Before briefing had begun in this appeal, the parties

filed a Joint Stipulation for Partial Reversal and Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Settlement

Agreement on December 18, 2024 (Joint Stipulation). This court approves the Joint

Stipulation. For the reasons discussed herein, the Judgment is reversed as to paragraphs

2 through 5 described below. T he trial court is directed to enter the Proposed Judgment

attached to this opinion as exhibit 1, with the Settlement Agreement attached to the

Proposed Judgment as exhibit A.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS

Real party in interest and respondent CDRE Holdings 17, LLC (CDRE) proposed

to build a warehouse project consisting of two buildings on 17.7 acres of land zoned as

commercial (the “Project”). The Project was across the street from single- family

homes, apartments, and a charter school, the nearest of which was 152 feet north

2 of the site. On January 18, 2022, defendants and respondents City of Moreno Valley and

City Council of Moreno Valley (the “City”) approved the Project and adopted an Initial

Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). On February 1, 2022, the City approved

a change in zoning to accommodate the Project. Project opponents Center for

Community Action and Environmental Justice and the Sierra Club (“Petitioners”) filed

a petition for writ of mandate (“Petition”) on February 17, 2022, alleging a single cause

of action for violation of CEQA. Petitioners argued there was substantial evidence in the

record that supports a fair argument that the Project may have a significant impact on the

environment, including: (1) air quality due to the Project construction and increased

truck trips; (2) health impacts due to construction and operation emissions; (3) noise

impacts from increased truck trips; (4) safety impacts from increased truck trips; and (5)

cumulative impacts from the Project and multiple other projects approved in the City

without adequate environmental review. The Petition alleged the City had failed to

adopt recommended mitigation measures and violated CEQA by relying on an

inadequate MND.

After a trial on the merits, the trial court issued the Judgment, consisting of six

paragraphs: (1) granting the Petition because the evidence in the record supports a fair

argument that the Project may have potentially significant impacts on the environment;

(2) ordering the City to set aside its adoption of the MND for the Project and other

approvals of the Project, and to comply with CEQA to the extent the City takes further

action to approve the Project; (3) reserving jurisdiction over the City’s proceedings with

3 regard to the Project; (4) ordering the City to file an initial return to the Writ informing

the court regarding how the City has complied with the Writ; (5) until the trial court

discharges the Writ, enjoining the City and CDRE from all activities regarding the Project

that could alter the physical environment; and (6) declaring Petitioners prevailing parties

for purposes of attorneys’ fees and costs.

CDRE timely appealed the Judgment on January 10, 2024. On December 18,

2024, the parties filed the Joint Stipulation.

DISCUSSION

This court cannot both dismiss an appeal and make an order reversing the trial

court’s judgment. A dismissal in any court terminates the court’s jurisdiction to make any

further order, and the effect of a dismissal of an appeal is to affirm the judgment or order

appealed. (See Paul v. Milk Depots, Inc. (1964) 62 Cal.2d 129, 134-135; Kahn v. Kahn

(1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 372, 387.)

Before approving the parties’ stipulated reversal, this court must find the following

(Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8)):

1. “There is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public

will be adversely affected by the reversal.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8)(A).)

2. The parties’ reasons “for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public

trust that may result from the nullification of [the] judgment and the risk that the

availability of stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement.” (Code

Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8)(B).)

4 First, there is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public

will be adversely affected by this reversal. The nature of the settlement reached by the

parties reasonably assures that the Project as modified by the parties’ settlement will

entail no significant environmental effects. Petitioners are community organizations that

have effectively represented the interests of the community, including by litigating the

major objections raised by the community. There was no other opposition to the Project

on grounds that are not addressed by the Settlement Agreement.

Second, the settlement makes partial reversal appropriate. The parties’ revisions

of the Project mitigate the potentially significant environmental impacts found in the

Statement of Ruling filed October 16, 2023, upon which the Judgment is based. The trial

court found that the City failed to comply with CEQA because Petitioners presented

substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have potentially

significant noise, air quality, and health impacts. The trial court also found that the

City’s environmental document did not adequately describe schools along the Project’s

foreseeable truck routes. The Settlement Agreement mitigates these potential impacts by

requiring electrification of buildings, trucks, and construction equipment, which will

substantially reduce the noise generated by the Project and will reduce the Project’s

emissions of diesel particulate matter and air pollutants. The Settlement Agreement also

limits the routes that Project trucks may travel to avoid the schools discussed above. The

mitigations contained in the Settlement Agreement thus address the concerns raised by

the trial court that the Judgment was intended to remedy.

5 The instructions in the Judgment directing further environmental review to determine the

need for additional mitigation have therefore been made unnecessary. Partial reversal of

the Judgment will place the parties in approximately the same position they would be in

if the appeal were successfully prosecuted to completion.

Third, granting the partial reversal will not result in the erosion of public trust.

The partial reversal contemplated by the parties is not on the merits, but rather on the

ground of the mootness resulting from the settlement. The parties seek partial reversal to:

(1) facilitate the mitigation provided by the Settlement Agreement; (2) restore the case to

the superior court’s jurisdiction so that it may enter a new judgment that gives effect to

the Settlement Agreement; and (3) avoid any implication that the original Judgment

appealed from remains in effect.

Fourth, the parties credibly assert that the possibility of stipulating to a partial

reversal on appeal did not occur to any of them prior to trial and did not act as a

disincentive to pretrial settlement. Instead, each party believed in good faith that their

positions concerning the Project were supported by the law and the facts, and each could

have reasonably believed that they would have prevailed at trial.

6

DISPOSITION

The Judgment is reversed in part, as to paragraphs 2 through 5. The trial court is

directed to dismiss the underlying action with prejudice. The parties shall bear their own

costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS

J. We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

MILLER

J.

7