## Facts

- Paul Katzeff owned residential property adjoining timberland later owned by Gregg Kuljian; Ed Powers previously owned that timberland and retained logging rights after sale.
- In 1988, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) approved a timber harvest plan (THP) for the neighboring parcel and found the harvest could funnel and accelerate winds, threatening damage to Katzeff’s home.
- As mitigation, CDF required that no trees be removed within 200 feet of Katzeff’s home unless Katzeff gave prior approval, preserving a wind-buffer.
- In 1998, CDF approved a second THP for the same parcel and again required no cutting within 200 feet of Katzeff’s house, citing the apparent effectiveness of the buffer.
- Each THP was effective for three years after approval.
- After Kuljian acquired the parcel, he sought a statutory “conversion exemption” for less than three acres to convert timberland to an orchard and to permit Powers to log and sell the timber.
- In April 2008, CDF accepted and approved the conversion exemption without a THP or further environmental review, authorizing tree removal within the 200-foot buffer zone.
- Katzeff alleged removal of the buffer trees would increase wind impacts on his home and reverse mitigation previously required to avoid environmental and property damage.

## Issues

1. Whether CDF could approve a less-than-three-acre conversion exemption without CEQA/FPA environmental consideration when the approval would eliminate a mitigation measure imposed in earlier THPs.
2. Whether Katzeff stated a nuisance claim based on alleged wind damage from removal of the buffer trees, or whether the statutory timber-harvest scheme barred nuisance liability.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment on the pleadings for all defendants.
- The court held Katzeff adequately pleaded CEQA and Forest Practice Act violations based on CDF’s approval of an exemption that allowed removal of a previously required wind-buffer mitigation.
- The court rejected the argument that the 200-foot buffer condition automatically expired with the THPs’ three-year effectiveness period.
- The court held the nuisance cause of action was sufficiently pleaded and was not barred as a matter of law by statutory authorization of the timber activity.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Mitigation conditions imposed as part of timber-harvest approvals may continue to operate beyond the THP’s nominal term when the condition addresses an ongoing, identified environmental risk.
- An agency’s authority to approve an exempt timber operation does not authorize it to disregard or abrogate previously imposed mitigation measures that remain necessary to avoid significant impacts.
- On judgment on the pleadings, courts accept well-pleaded allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor; disputes about the meaning and continuing effect of mitigation conditions generally should not be resolved against the plaintiff at the pleadings stage.
- Statutory regulation or authorization of timber operations does not automatically preclude a neighboring landowner’s common-law nuisance claim alleging substantial and unreasonable interference with use and enjoyment of property.

## Conclusion

The court held that a small-acreage conversion exemption could not be used to eliminate a previously required wind-buffer mitigation without proper consideration under CEQA and the Forest Practice Act, and it allowed the neighboring landowner’s nuisance claim to proceed beyond the pleadings.


Katzeff v. Cal. Dep’t of Forestry & Fire Prot., 181 Cal. App. 4th 601 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)