CEQA

Subscribe to CEQA via RSS

By now, most CEQA practitioners have faced the problem of what to do when a project opponent submits the Attorney General’s 18-page list of potential greenhouse gas mitigation measures, suggesting the measures might be appropriate for the project at issue. On June 30, 2011, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that the lead agency is not necessarily required to explain why each of the proposed measures is inappropriate for the specific project.
Continue Reading Lead Agencies Are Not Always Required to Explain Why Every Proposed Mitigation Measure is Infeasible

The Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District found substantial evidence of a fair argument that a Target development project would have a significant environmental impact by disturbing contaminated soil, but rejected challenges based on air pollution and greenhouse gas impacts.
Continue Reading Implicit Approval of Using AB 32 Reduction Goals to Establish GHG Thresholds

By Katherine J. Hart

In the recent opinion of CREED v. City of San Diego (2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 720, Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District) petitioners are cautioned not to rely on massive, unorganized, last minute submittals of documents and data without clarifying and outlining their specific concerns in order to provide an agency with an opportunity to respond. The court of appeal also held that water supply assessments (WSAs) can be approved by a CEQA lead agency that also serves as the water supplier for the project area by including the WSA analysis in the environmental document and certifying that environmental document (e.g., no separate WSA approval is necessary).
Continue Reading Petitioners Be Forewarned: Massive Document “Dumps” May Not Suffice To Exhaust Administrative Remedies; Water Supply Assessments May Be Approved Via Certification Of An EIR.

The Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the Court of Appeal for the Second District granting an industry association’s petition for writ of mandate challenging the city of Manhattan Beach’s ban on point-of-sale plastic bag use. In so doing, the Supreme Court (“Court”) overturned the rule that corporations must make a heightened showing to demonstrate public interest standing, urged the use of common sense at all stages in the CEQA process, and held that an EIR was not required to adopt a plastic bag ordinance.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Rejects Need for EIR and Supports Use of Common Sense