By William W. Abbott, Diane Kindermann, Katherine J. Hart, Glen Hansen and Brian Russell

Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann’s 2014 3^rd Quarter CEQA update, cumulative for the year. The newer decisions are highlighted in bold font. Although the Supreme Court issued its decision on limitations and CEQA (Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v The Superior Court), the court granted preview in another CEQA case, resetting again the number of CEQA cases pending at the court at six. Among other decisions, the appellate court concluded that the Governor was not subject to CEQA on certain tribal gaming decisions (Picayune Rancheria v. Brown), parsed another negative declaration finding only one flaw (Rominger v. County of Colusa), and addressed an important litigation question as to when the agency can recover record-related litigation costs (Coalition for Adequate Review v. City and County of San Francisco). To read the prior year cumulative CEQA review, click here: 2013

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE COMPLETE 2014 3RD QUARTER CEQA UPDATE.

Continue Reading 2014 CEQA 3rd QUARTER REVIEW

Yesterday, October 1, 2014, the California Supreme Court granted the Real Party in Interest and Respondent Friant Ranch, L.P.’s petition for review in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno regarding its master planned project approved by the County of Fresno earlier this year.  For more information on this case, go to:  http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2081570&doc_no=S219783

The information …

By William W. Abbott

A continuing reoccurring question for CEQA practitioners is: when is it appropriate to rely upon the regulatory scheme and permitting steps of independent regulatory agencies? The most ready criticism of that practice is that it involves deferred mitigation. That criticism has to be balanced against the recognition that subsequent to the enactment of CEQA, that there now exists a myriad number of local, state and federal regulatory agencies with special regulations and expertise and CEQA should integrate with existing regulatory practices where issues overlap. As the decision in Citizens Opposing a Dangerous Environment v. County of Kern (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 360 illustrates, perhaps an easier case can be made for regulatory reliance when a CEQA lead agency relies upon a federal agency with exclusive regulatory authority.Continue Reading Permissible CEQA Mitigation Includes Reliance Independent Agency Regulatory Review

By Glen Hansen

In Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held that the environmental impact report for the comprehensive plan to redevelop Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island in the San Francisco Bay, which was labeled a “project EIR” (a) satisfied the substantial evidence standard of review as to all of the required elements of an EIR; (b) addressed the environmental impacts of the proposed project to a degree of specificity consistent with the underlying activity being approved; and (c) properly allows for supplemental review that may be necessary in the future.Continue Reading It Says It’s A “Project” EIR. You Say It Should Be A “Program” EIR. Does The Label Even Matter?

 By William W. Abbott

The courts have been clear: the decisionmaking body has to consider the CEQA document before taking action to granting a discretionary approval. A recent court decision examines a variation on that practice when the approving body approved the CEQA document, but lacked the authority under the local code to do. How does the legislative body cure that error?Continue Reading An Appeal To The City Council Fails To Wash Away All CEQA Sins. Consideration Of Historical Resources In A Negative Declaration Falls Under The Substantial Evidence Test, Not The Fair Argument Test.

By Katherine J. Hart

In Coalition for Adequate Review v. City and County of San Francisco (September 15, 2014, A135512) ___Cal.App.4th ___, the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reversed in part and remanded in part, a trial court’s denial of the City’s ability to recover costs for the record of proceedings where the Coalition failed to include all relevant documents in the record the Coalition elected to prepare, despite the trial court’s denial of the petition for writ of mandate.Continue Reading Appellate Court Clarifies Costs Recovery Rules In CEQA Litigation