In the most recent fee mitigation case, Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1156, the Third District Court of Appeal held that a county was required to prepare a tiered EIR before adopting its oak woodland management plan and mitigation fee program.
Continue Reading Approval of Oak Woodland Management Plan and Mitigation Fee Program Based on a Negative Declaration is Overturned by Third District Appellate

SB 226 draft CEQA Guidelines now available for review.
Continue Reading SB 226 draft CEQA Guidelines now available for review.

Is it the impact of the project on the environment or the environment’s impact on the project? The Supreme Court takes a pass.
Continue Reading Update on Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles

In direct contrast to opinions recently issued by the Fifth and Sixth Appellate District Courts, the Second Appellate District upholds use of variable baselines in an EIR.
Continue Reading A Judicial Throwdown on CEQA’s Baseline Requirements

By William W. Abbott

On March 15, 2012, California Department of Fish and Game announced it was suspending work on new proposals for mitigation banks, due to state budgetary constraints. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/conplan/mitbank/

Despite the state’s own recognition of the benefits of mitigation or conservation banks, that recognition only goes so far. This poses a challenge to agencies and developers operating in areas in which the banks are limited or closing. It may be that acquiring remaining credits will take on a new priority while projects are being re-positioned during the market slump. Another implication is that it may become imperative to challenge a CEQA characterization of habitat loss or impairment given that options for satisfying compensation may be more limited in the future. Here is the state’s list of approved banks as of January, 2012. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/conplan/mitbank/catalogue/catalogue.htmlContinue Reading A Run on the Banks? (Mitigation banks that is.)

By William W. Abbott, Diane Kindermann, Elizabeth Strahlstrom, Katherine J. Hart and Glen Hansen

The first quarter cases largely hone or refine established CEQA concepts. Not surprisingly, two decisions reaffirm that the fair argument test (whether for exemptions or negative declarations) remains a relatively low threshold for an opponent to cross (Berkeley Hillside and Consolidated Irrigation.) The Flanders court clarified that feasibility is based upon a “reasonably prudent” test, not what the applicant can afford. The Fifth Appellate District applied the traditional appellate substantial evidence test to a trial court order augmenting a CEQA record (Consolidated Irrigation District.) Finally, the most interesting case comes from El Dorado which discusses the CEQA transition from a general plan EIR to an implementing action (Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation). Enjoy!Continue Reading 2012 CEQA 1st QUARTER REVIEW