CEQA

Subscribe to CEQA via RSS

By Leslie Z. Walker

According to Las Lomas Land Co., LLC v. City of Los Angeles (Sept. 17, 2009, B213637) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the long standing rule that CEQA does not apply to projects rejected or disapproved by a public agency, allows a public agency to reject a project before completing or considering the EIR. In Las Lomas, the Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District made clear that a city may stop environmental review mid-stream and reject a project without awaiting the completion of a final EIR. While this holding may avoid wasting time and money on an EIR for a dead-on-arrival project, it will also make it harder for projects to stay in play until the entire environmental document is complete.
Continue Reading CEQA Does Not Apply to Project Disapproval, Even if the EIR is Underway

By Leslie Z. Walker

On July 3, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency issued a notice of proposed action (“Notice”) for the adoption of CEQA guidelines addressing the evaluation and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Public Resources Code section 21083.05 requires that the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) “prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions,” by July 1, 2009. OPR transmitted these in April of 2009, ahead of schedule. See OPR Finalizes Proposed CEQA Guidelines and Transmits Them to Resources Agency. The Resources Agency has noticed its intent to adopt the guidelines, as proposed by the OPR. The Notice commenced the rulemaking process for the guidelines.
Continue Reading CEQA Guidelines on Greenhouse Gases One Step Closer to Law

By Cori Badgley

Generally, a lawsuit challenging an agency’s decision or environmental review must be brought within 30, 60 or 90 days, depending on the applicable statute of limitations. Often, an agency’s decision involves powers granted under different statutes, which can lead to conflicting statutes of limitations. In Strother v. California Coastal Commission (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 873, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District addressed such a conflict in a challenge to the granting of a coastal development permit. The conflict arose between the statute of limitations under the California Coastal Act (Pub. Resources Code § 30801) and the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Resources Code § 21080.5). The court held that as long as the challenges related to CEQA, CEQA’s statute of limitations applied.
Continue Reading CEQA Statute of Limitations Still Applies in Challenge to Coastal Development Permit

By Leslie Walker

In California Oak Foundation v. County of Tehama et al. 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 923, the California Oak Foundation (“COF”) challenged Tehama County Board of Supervisors’ (the “County”) approval of the Sun City Tehama Specific Plan and EIR. The Sun City Tehama Specific Plan is a 3,320 acre residential and commercial development adjacent to Interstate Highway 5 between Red Bluff and Redding. In an unpublished portion of the opinion, the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District addressed COF’s claims that the EIR inadequately mitigated for the project’s impacts to Blue Oak Woodlands and traffic. In the published portion of the opinion, the Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of COF’s motion to include privileged documents in the administrative record.
Continue Reading Common Interest Doctrine Applies to County’s Disclosure to Real Parties in Interest

By Cori Badgley

In Health First v. March Joint Powers Authority (2009) (Case No. E045541), the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District addressed the issue of whether the approval of a Design Plan Application was discretionary, thus requiring review pursuant to CEQA. The court held that approval of the Design Plan Application was ministerial, not discretionary, and therefore, CEQA did not apply.
Continue Reading Approval of Design Plan Application Deemed “Ministerial” Under CEQA

 By Katherine J. Hart

The most recent CEQA/land use decision comes from the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District and provides important guidance on issues of exhaustion of administrative remedies, CEQA mitigation measures, and general plan interpretation. In California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova and Jaeger Road 530, LLC, filed March…

By Leslie Z. Walker

Two months ahead of the deadline mandated by SB 97 (Chapter 185, Statutes 2007; Public Resources Code section 21083.05), the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) proposed amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (“Proposed Guidelines”) and transmitted them to the Resources Agency for rulemaking on Monday, April 13, 2009.
Continue Reading OPR Finalizes Proposed CEQA Guidelines and Transmits Them to Resources Agency

By Katherine J. Hart

In California Native Plant Society v. County of El Dorado, (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1026, the California Native Plant Society (“Society”) filed a CEQA lawsuit against El Dorado County (“County”) after the County approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and Congregate Care Project (“Project”). The Project consists of two care units, cottages, and a clubhouse on 20 acres, and was part of a larger development area including a local medical center, a senior assisted living facility, medical office buildings and a local retail shopping center.
Continue Reading Are the Days of Mitigating a Project’s Significant Impacts with Impact Fees Gone?

By William W. Abbott

In 2006, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (“District”) adopted higher rates for groundwater pumping. These charges were imposed on water districts and utilities which pumped their own groundwater, including the Great Oaks Water Company (“Great Oaks”). Great Oaks subsequently filed suit seeking to set aside the increases claiming that the District had failed to comply with CEQA by not specifying the factual or evidentiary basis for the rate increases and that exemptions from CEQA are invalid because the District’s budget included monies dedicated to system expansion.
Continue Reading District Offered Sufficient Justification to Apply CEQA Exemption to Rate Setting for Groundwater Extraction Charges