Land Use, Environmental, and Real Estate Law in California
By William W. Abbott
The shelf life of mitigation measures may readily outlast the lives of the projects to which they are attached, according to the First Appellate District. While the fact pattern is specific to timber harvesting and later conversion, the holding has application in the broader world of all CEQA practice.Continue Reading The Long Life of CEQA Mitigation Measures
The California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) provides that the purpose of an environmental impact report (“EIR”) is “to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.) In Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) __ Cal.App.4th __, the court found that an EIR for a proposed open-air composting facility did not satisfy the informational purposes of an EIR in relation to air quality alternatives and water supply…
Continue Reading Put a Lid on It: EIR for Open Air Human Waste Composting Facility Held Invalid
In the first ever appellate court decision regarding CEQA and climate change, the First District Court of Appeal held the future development of a plan for greenhouse gas mitigation constitutes deferred mitigation. The Court also found the project description inadequate for failure to adequately describe whether the project would result in the refinery processing heavier crude because the EIR was internally inconsistent as well as inconsistent with other documents discussing the project.
Continue Reading 898,000 Metric Tons of Unmitigated CO2: Prime Conditions for the First Appellate Court Decision on CEQA and Climate Change
An appellate court sets aside a newly adopted general plan on grounds of incompatibility with the State Aeronautics Act, and on the basis of failure to consider a lower growth alternative in the EIR.
It has long been said that the general plan is the constitution for development and growth. In reality, the general plan has, on a selected basis, been subverted to other special planning purposes such as coastal planning, preservation of San Francisco Bay and Lake Tahoe and, as in the subject to this article, airport planning.
Continue Reading City’s New General Plan is not Cleared for Take-off, Returns to Base and is Grounded: Court Sets Aside Watsonville General Plan for Non Compliance with State Aeronautical Act and CEQA Requirements
Appellate court affirms range of alternatives in EIR for facility expansion as sufficient; bars additional claims for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Continue Reading Regents’ CEQA Document Receives a Passing Grade; Opponent Marked Down for Inadequate Participation
In the second time in two months, the California Supreme Court announced that once a Notice of Exemption (“NOE”) for a project is filed, the applicable statute of limitations is 35 days – regardless of the circumstances surrounding the NOE. On April 1, 2010, the Court held that a citizens’ suit challenging a project under the California Environmental Quality Act was barred by the 35-day statute of limitations contained in Public Resources Code section 21167 subdivision (d) because the City of Stockton had filed a facially valid NOE.
Continue Reading No Fooling: A Facially Valid NOE Triggers a 35-Day Statute of Limitations
An amendment to a prior commercial center approval which permits construction of a supercenter does not, by itself, mandate the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
Continue Reading Subsequent EIRs: It is Still a Matter of the Evidence in the Record
CEQA Air impacts are to be measured against existing physical conditions not existing permitted level of operations for emitter.
Continue Reading Baseline Depends Upon Whether You Have a New or Modified Project or Existing Project Without Significant Expansion of Use
By Leslie Z. Walker
Almost three years after Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr. filed suit against the County of San Bernardino for failing to consider the impacts of the County’s General Plan on Global Warming, the Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions mandated by Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, Statues 2007; Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.05), take effect today.
Continue Reading CEQA Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Become Law Today
By: Katherine J. Hart
As determined by the California Supreme Court 27 years ago, local agencies may impose a fee for the filing of an appeal of a CEQA decision so long as that fee is reasonable.
Continue Reading Yes, Local Appeal Fees Apply to CEQA Appeals
