Land Use, Environmental, and Real Estate Law in California
By Leslie Z. Walker
On June 26, 2008, the California Air Resources Board released a draft of the scoping plan required under Assembly Bill 32 (Chapter 488, Statutes 2006), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
Continue Reading Local Government Responsible for 1% of Statewide GHG Emission Reduction According to ARB Draft Plan
By Katherine J. Hart
In Moss v. County of Humboldt, et al (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1041, the Court of Appeal (1st Appellate District) held that a project previously studied under CEQA need not undergo supplemental CEQA review upon reapplication of the same project unless new information (supported by substantial evidence in the record) indicates there will be potential environmental impacts.
Continue Reading Re-Approval of Expired Entitlements Can Track Prior CEQA Documentation, Subject to the Substantial Change Doctrine
By Janell M. Bogue
In the case of Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (May 22, 2008) 2008 Cal.Lexis 6207, the California Supreme Court discussed several issues important to those who deal with CEQA. The Court held that the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (“Department”) properly approved several timber harvest plans (“THPs”) for land located in Tuolumne County. In doing so, the Court examined the requirements for cumulative impacts analysis and the analysis of foreseeable actions.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Upholds THPs; Discusses Cumulative Impacts and Foreseeable Actions
By Leslie Z. Walker
CEQA practitioners have spent the last year anxiously anticipating the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) advice to local agencies on the evaluation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and their effect on climate change in the CEQA process. On June 19, 2008, OPR offered a peek at its perspective by issuing the Technical Advisory CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act Review.
Continue Reading OPR on CEQA and Climate Change: Local Agencies Continue to Bear the Heat
By Janell M. Bogue
In the case of Sierra Club v. City of Orange (April 30, 2008) 2008 Cal.App.Lexis 814 (publication status changed from unpublished to published on May 30, 2008), the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District upheld a combined SEIR/EIR for a large mixed use development. In its opinion, the court covered a wide range of CEQA issues, including timely filing of a lawsuit after a notice of determination, the exhaustion doctrine, project baselines, and alternatives.
Continue Reading Appellate Court Reviews CEQA Compliance for Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
By William W. Abbott
The Delta, the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, is ground zero in the debate over California water. CALFED was born as a consortium of 18 federal and state agencies. In 2000, CALFED certified a programmatic EIR/EIS. After appeals, the Supreme Court subsequently granted review and on June 5, 2008, issued an opinion. In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (June 5, 2008) 2008 Cal. LEXIS 6737. In this opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed the legal adequacy of the programmatic document and also gave guidance on the evaluation of alternatives and the level of detail necessary in programmatic EIRs.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court affirms the legal adequacy of the CALFED EIR; provides guidance on evaluation of alternatives and level of detail for first tier EIRs
By Katherine J. Hart
This case addresses the issue of whether or not the legal effect of a notice of determination (“NOD”) in establishing a 30-day statute of limitations is absolute as to any and all CEQA based claims. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, 6th appellate district, claims alleging that the agency failed to conduct environmental review but should have are governed by a separate 180-day limitation period.
Continue Reading Notice of Determination’s Thirty-Day Statute of Limitations May Not Apply to All CEQA Claims
By Janell M. Bogue
You wouldn’t think that a simple, wooden fence would create enough controversy to fuel an extensive administrative process, a trial court case, and an appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District. However, in the case of Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan and Hollywood Heritage v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 2008 Cal.App.Lexis 501, that is exactly what happened.
Continue Reading Good Fences Make Good Neighbors but Bad Fences Make Appellate Opinions
By William W. Abbott
In the opinion of the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, (California Water Impact Network v. Newhall County Water Dist., (2008) Cal.App.LEXIS 554) a Water Supply Assessment (“WSA”) is like a traffic impact study: by itself it is not subject to legal review except in the context of a lawsuit challenging the CEQA document.
Continue Reading District’s Water Supply Assessment is Not Subject to Third Party Lawsuit Except in a Legal Challenge to the EIR
By Cori Badgley
In CEQA litigation, a petitioner may elect to create the administrative record or request that the respondent local agency assemble the record. When the local agency prepares the record, the petitioner pays for the costs of preparation. Petitioners sometimes elect to prepare the record in an effort to reduce costs.
Continue Reading Be Careful What You Ask For: The Costs Might be More Than You Can Bear
