CEQA

Subscribe to CEQA via RSS

By Janell M. Bogue

In a victory for the Regional Water Quality Control Boards and State Water Resources Control Board, the Second Appellate District revised its opinion in County of Los Angeles v. California State Water Resources Board (2006) 2006 Cal.App.LEXIS 1744 on November 6, 2006. Though several parties submitted petitions for rehearing, the court modified its previous October 5, 2006 opinion on its own and denied all the rehearing petitions.
Continue Reading Second Appellate District Modifies Opinion Regarding CEQA Analysis for NPDES Permits

By Janell M. Bogue

Recently, the Second Appellate District issued an opinion which may change how the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (“Boards” or “Regional Boards”) issue National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permits and comply with California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The case is County of Los Angeles v. California State Water Resources Control Board (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 985.
Continue Reading Second Appellate District Holds that NPDES Permits are Subject to Focused CEQA Review

By William W. Abbott
As noted in our recent article “The Importance of the Mundane: CEQA’s Small Details are Important as Well”, the Sixth Appellate District discussed how the lead agency thoroughly documented the genealogy of a later EIR from a series of prior CEQA documents. In Save our Neighborhood v. Lishman (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1288, the Third Appellate District recently made a similar observation when evaluating a legal challenge to an addendum which followed an earlier EIR. The court held that is important at the outset for the environmental document preparer to declare and document the pedigree relationship from earlier CEQA documents.
Continue Reading Pedigrees Are Not Just For Dogs: CEQA Documents Deserve Them As Well

By William W. Abbott & Janell M. Bogue
Closely following on the heels of County of San Diego, the California Supreme Court decided City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341, which also involved issues of the appropriateness of mitigation expenditures, this time by the California State University system. Here, the state university (CSU) assumed the legal position that it was not authorized to mitigate for offsite impacts, and on that basis, the Trustees rejected the feasibility of mitigation measures sought by a local city (Marina) and a base reuse authority (Fort Ord Reuse Authority or “FORA”).
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Schools CSU on Mitigation Infeasibility

By Joel Ellinwood, AICP
Recognizing that the often seemingly interminable delay by local agencies in development permit processing drives up costs of providing housing and other desirable projects, the development industry succeeded in persuading the legislature to impose what at first glance appear to be strict timelines for the agency to approve or disapprove projects. The timelines are given teeth by provisions which may result in projects being “deemed approved” if the agency fails to act within the time provided. However, as the recent case of Mahon v. County of San Mateo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 812 (modified June 19, 2006) illustrates, the teeth don’t seem to have much bite…
Continue Reading Take Notice!

By William W. Abbott
There is no middle of the road for Wal-Mart Stores. People are passionate on both sides, which includes the lawyers and consultants caught in the debate as it appears that Wal-Mart, as a single entity, generates more CEQA litigation than any other California applicant. Recent Wal-Mart litigation, Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 911, illustrates the importance of the small details in CEQA litigation…
Continue Reading The Importance of the Mundane in CEQA Litigation: It’s All in the Details

By William W. Abbott
Unlike other areas of CEQA practice, there has been less frequent and less critical analysis of what constitutes a valid finding of infeasibility. The recent decision in San Diego v. Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District begins to shed light on what is likely to be a new chapter of CEQA challenges.
Continue Reading Mitigation Infeasibility: New Thinking on an Old Issue

By Janell M. Bogue

As cities and developers look inward for new development opportunities, the dark cloud of CEQA is never far away. The legislature has attempted to facilitate infill opportunities by narrowing CEQA’s application. This case illustrates how far this infill exemption can reach. In Banker’s Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego (May 8, 2006) 2006 Cal.App.Lexis 684, developers proposed an urban infill project in the City of San Diego (“City”) near the northwest corner of Balboa Park. The project, a fourteen-story, fourteen-unit multi-family residential building, was approved by the City and found to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Guidelines section 15332. A neighborhood preservation group filed for a writ of mandate and after losing at the trial court level, the neighborhood group appealed, claiming that the project was not exempt from CEQA and that the City reviewed the project in a piecemeal fashion.
Continue Reading More Infill, More Problems: The Categorical CEQA Exemption for Infill Developments

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Turlock (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4th 273 Filed April 4, 2006. By Joel Ellinwood, AICP and Kate Hart For those awaiting a court’s interpretation of the standards of review and to see a court analysis of Section 21083.3 (Guidelines Section 15183) providing for a conditional exemption from CEQA for projects that are consistent with an approved general plan, the time has come. For those hoping to take advantage of the rollback prices at a new Wal-Mart Superstore in Turlock, the chance is sprung. Wal-Mart wanted to build a new store in the City of Turlock (“City”). In early 2003, Wal-Mart representatives inquired with City staff about developing a Wal-Mart Supercenter, which would include a full-service grocery department. The City staff provided Wal-Mart with entitlement and fee information as requested.
Continue Reading Will Turlock Ever Get Rollback Prices?

by William W. Abbott and Janell M. Bogue

As development continues to occur in areas outside of urbanized metropolitan areas developers are encountering more threatened or endangered species issues in their environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). A fundamental question which must be addressed is whether there are threatened or endangered species present in the project area and whether the project will affect those species. This is not always a simple question to answer, as it is not clear what studies are necessary in order to adequately analyze biological resources under CEQA. What standards are appropriate to measure the significance of the effects on endangered species? Furthermore, once threatened or endangered species are determined to be affected by the project and potentially significant impacts to biological resources are identified, how does one provide for adequate mitigation in order to mitigate those impacts to a less than significant level? This paper discusses recent CEQA cases dealing with these questions and provide insight on how to address endangered species concerns in order to comply with CEQA.
Continue Reading Analyzing and Mitigating Biological Resources and Endangered Species Impacts Under CEQA: An Update