CEQA

Subscribe to CEQA via RSS

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 2nd 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

In the most recent fee mitigation case, Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1156, the Third District Court of Appeal held that a county was required to prepare a tiered EIR before adopting its oak woodland management plan and mitigation fee program.
Continue Reading Approval of Oak Woodland Management Plan and Mitigation Fee Program Based on a Negative Declaration is Overturned by Third District Appellate