Jamulians Against the Casino v. Dept. of Transportation CA3

Filed 3/30/16 Jamulians Against the Casino v. Dept. of Transportation CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

JAMULIANS AGAINST THE CASINO, C077806

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34-2014-80001752-CU-WM-GDS) v.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Defendant and Respondent;

JAMUL INDIAN VILLAGE,

Real Party in Interest.

Plaintiff Jamulians Against the Casino (JAC) appeals from the judgment denying its petition for writ of administrative mandate, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. We shall dismiss the appeal.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Real party in interest Jamul Indian Village (real party)1 entered into a compact with the State of California to operate a casino on tribal property. (Gov. Code, § 12012.25, subd. (a)(22).) The execution of this compact and any “on-reservation impacts” of “compliance with [its] terms” are projects the Legislature has declared exempt from any environmental review under state law “[i]n deference to tribal [sovereign immunity].” (Gov. Code, § 12012.25, subd. (g).) Real party nonetheless agreed as part of its compact to engage in the equivalent of state and federal environmental review, in the course of which it noted possible safety impacts from construction traffic on the state highway to which its reservation has existing access. It thus sought an encroachment permit from the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for placing caution signs and flaggers in the right-of-way to facilitate slow-moving construction equipment entering and exiting the state highway. Caltrans issued the permit, filing a Notice of Exemption (NOE) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.; see id., §§ 21108, subd. (b), 21080, subd. (b)(9) & 21084, subd. (a)),2 with a finding that a regulatory categorical exemption from the requirements of CEQA applied (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 15305 [minor encroachment permits]).3 It is the grant of this encroachment permit for the