CEQA

Subscribe to CEQA via RSS

By Leslie Z. Walker

The California Attorney General and the Local Government Commission hosted the first of five statewide workshops, CEQA and Climate Change: Partnering with Local Agencies to Combat Global Warming, on Thursday, March 20, 2008. In his invitation to cities and counties across the state, the Attorney General explained that planning for Climate Change should not await the 2012 implementation of binding Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) emission limits and emission reduction measures required by AB 32. At the workshop, the Attorney General reiterated his position that CEQA requires GHG analysis.
Continue Reading Attorney General’s Conference on Climate Change: Many Methods, No Answers

By Janell M. Bogue

In the case of Citizens for Responsible and Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (February 21, 2008) 2008 Cal.App.Lexis 359 the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District held that a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) approved for a senior residential project was inadequate under CEQA. In doing so, the court discussed density calculations and the weighing of evidence under the fair argument test.
Continue Reading Court of Appeal Applies Fair Argument Test in Appeal of Senior Housing Project

By Cori Badgley

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the definition of “environment” includes historical resources. If a project has the potential to affect historical resources, it is subject to environmental review. In Valley Advocates v. City of Fresno (2008) No. F050952, the appellate court held that the inquiry of whether a resource should be listed in the local register cannot be relied upon for purposes of CEQA to determine whether a resource is historic. Additionally, the court held that the fair argument standard does not apply to the question of whether a resource is a discretionary historical resource under CEQA.Continue Reading What You Consider Ancient History Might Require a Fresh Look Under CEQA

By Janell M. Bogue

A recent opinion from the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two discusses two important CEQA topics: certainty in project descriptions and an EIR’s discussion of alternatives. Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (December 17, 2007) 2007 Cal.App.LEXIS 2045.
Continue Reading Of Granny Flats and Land Swaps: Project Descriptions and Alternatives Analysis Under CEQA

By Joel Ellinwood, AICP

As the battle of the big boxes continues on the fields of CEQA in the California courts, the Fifth District Court of Appeals reiterated (in an unpublished portion of the opinion) that it will carefully scrutinize evidence petitioners use to support a “fair argument” that a project approved with a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is inadequate without the preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Sonora…
Continue Reading The Road Not Studied

By Janell M. Bogue

A California appellate court recently addressed the approval of yet another Wal-Mart Superstore, this time in the City of Stockton (“City”). In Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton (November 28, 2007) 2007 Cal.App.LEXIS 1960, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District directed the trial court to set aside the approvals for a 200,000 plus square foot Wal-Mart, which would have been located in Spanos Park West (“Park”). The court held that a letter from the City’s Community Development Director (“Director”) was not an approval by a public agency. Since there was no approval by a public agency, the notice of exemption (“NOE”) was not valid and the short 35-day statute of limitations could not apply.
Continue Reading Invalid Approval Based on Lack of Legal Authority Leads to Invalid Notice of Exemption and Long Statute of Limitations for Challenged Wal-Mart

By Leslie Z. Walker

In Muzzy Ranch v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission, 41 Cal.4th 372, decided on June 21, 2007 and modified on September 12, 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the common sense exemption as applied to an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”), but found that development displaced by density limits is not too speculative of an impact to require CEQA analysis.
Continue Reading Displaced Development Not Too Speculative, Common Sense Exemption Upheld

By Janell M. Bogue

The California Supreme Court’s decision in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova addressed the sufficiency of future water supplies for a long-term, large scale development. In the case of Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles, the Second Appellate District determined that an EIR for a long-term project met the requirements discussed in the Vineyard case.
Continue Reading Paper Water Revisited: Second Appellate District Applies the Principles of Vineyard