By William W. Abbott

Neighborhood activists organized to defeat the proposed demolition of the Van De Kamp Bakery Building for the construction of a new commercial building. With the support of the activists, the Los Angeles Community College District acquired the site in 2001 with the idea of developing a satellite college facility. The District completed an EIR and two addenda for a reuse plan for the building, but due to budgetary constraints, the campus was not developed. In 2009, the District adopted an interim use plan, and authorized the execution of a lease with a private education service provider. The District determined that the lease did not require additional CEQA review as it served the same functionality that the site had been analyzed for under the EIR and related documents. Appellants filed a CEQA lawsuit (CEQA I) challenging the 2009 approvals. In 2010, while the CEQA I lawsuit was pending, the District took further actions to implement the 2009 resolutions. Appellants then filed a second CEQA action (CEQA II), challenging the 2010 actions on the basis that they violated CEQA. The District demurred to the CEQA II lawsuit on the basis that it was duplicative of the first lawsuit and time barred by the statute of limitations running from the 2009 resolutions. Appellants argued in part that the District did not commit itself to a particular course of action until such time as the 2010 approvals were granted. Applying the 180 day statute of limitations running from the 2009 resolutions, the trial court determined that the CEQA II claim was untimely. The court also concluded that the second lawsuit was duplicative. The court dismissed CEQA II, and in the separate CEQA action, granted the appellants partial relief.Continue Reading Court Says No Second Servings in CEQA Case

By William W. Abbott, Diane Kindermann, Elizabeth Strahlstrom, Katherine J. Hart and Glen Hansen

Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann’s 2012 CEQA update. It is cumulative for the year, with the newest cases issued in the 2^nd quarter bolded and referenced by asterisks (***).

The most notable decisions in the second quarter involves upholding an EIR which relied upon a future baseline (Neighbors for Smart Rail), a stark contrast to the Sunnyvale West case of 2010. The battle over the record of proceedings continues as the 3rd Appellate District specifies the proper legal procedure in the event of a dispute over the scope of the record (Citizens for Open Government) and the 5th provides continued clarification/elaboration on the scope of the record of proceedings in a CEQA writ (Consolidated Irrigation District v. Superior Court of Fresno County.)

In terms of pending developments, the California Supreme Court granted review in City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of the California State University and in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, two troublesome cases. On the administrative side, OPR is moving forward with the proposed CEQA Guideline amendments pertaining to infill projects (SB 226). For more information, see http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_sb226.php.Continue Reading 2012 CEQA 2nd QUARTER REVIEW

In this case, the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, upheld a city’s certification of a revised EIR on a Wal-Mart Supercenter. Chock-full of CEQA issues ranging from what documents get included in an administrative record, to what constitutes a reasonable range of alternatives to be discussed in an EIR to urban decay and relevant economic baselines under which to study urban decay, to impacts on agricultural resources and res judicata, this case is a must read.
Continue Reading Revised EIR for Wal-Mart Supercenter Is Upheld On Second Go-Around