CEQA

Subscribe to CEQA via RSS

The Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District found substantial evidence of a fair argument that a Target development project would have a significant environmental impact by disturbing contaminated soil, but rejected challenges based on air pollution and greenhouse gas impacts.
Continue Reading Implicit Approval of Using AB 32 Reduction Goals to Establish GHG Thresholds

By Katherine J. Hart

In the recent opinion of CREED v. City of San Diego (2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 720, Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District) petitioners are cautioned not to rely on massive, unorganized, last minute submittals of documents and data without clarifying and outlining their specific concerns in order to provide an agency with an opportunity to respond. The court of appeal also held that water supply assessments (WSAs) can be approved by a CEQA lead agency that also serves as the water supplier for the project area by including the WSA analysis in the environmental document and certifying that environmental document (e.g., no separate WSA approval is necessary).
Continue Reading Petitioners Be Forewarned: Massive Document “Dumps” May Not Suffice To Exhaust Administrative Remedies; Water Supply Assessments May Be Approved Via Certification Of An EIR.

The Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the Court of Appeal for the Second District granting an industry association’s petition for writ of mandate challenging the city of Manhattan Beach’s ban on point-of-sale plastic bag use. In so doing, the Supreme Court (“Court”) overturned the rule that corporations must make a heightened showing to demonstrate public interest standing, urged the use of common sense at all stages in the CEQA process, and held that an EIR was not required to adopt a plastic bag ordinance.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Rejects Need for EIR and Supports Use of Common Sense

In Cedar Fair, L.P. v. City of Santa Clara (2011) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 2011 Cal.App.LEXIS 506, the court found that a city and its redevelopment agency’s entering into a “term sheet” for the development of a professional football stadium development project was not an “approval” that required environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, even though the term sheet was very detailed and substantial sums had been spent on consultants leading up to that agreement.
Continue Reading A Very Detailed Agreement In The Process Of Negotiating A Development Project May Not Constitute An Approval For CEQA Environmental Review Purposes

By Cori Badgley

After a challenge based on the density bonus law and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a mixed-use affordable housing or senior affordable housing project (depending on what the developer chooses) in the City of Berkeley can move forward. In Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (March 30, 2011, Case No. A128121), the court held that the city properly applied density bonuses to the project and the categorical infill exemption under CEQA.Continue Reading The Normal Rules Don’t Apply When it Comes to Affordable Housing Projects