CEQA

Subscribe to CEQA via RSS

By William W. Abbott

For many discretionary actions, lead agencies struggle with the question of CEQA timing. While many court decisions have criticized cities and counties with delaying the CEQA process, there are rare occasions in which the lead agency concludes that meaningful CEQA review is too speculative and therefore premature. Two new cases provide the bookends to this discussion.
Continue Reading Too early or too late for CEQA review: Two appellate decisions bracket the fundamental question of timing

By William W. Abbott & Janell M. Bogue

Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (February 1, 2007, S132972) __ Cal.4th __ [2007 Cal.Lexis 748]

Few CEQA cases reach the California Supreme Court. Accordingly, it is noteworthy that the court has issued two decisions on CEQA issues in the past eight months. The most recent decision in Vineyard Area Citizens, provides added extensive guidance on the interface between water supply and CEQA. The case also provides a more limited analysis on EIR recirculation.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Weighs In Once Again on CEQA Compliance

By Kate J. Hart

California’s Fifth Appellate District recently decided the case of Wagner Farms, Inc. v. Modesto Irrigation District (December 6, 2006) 2006 Cal.App.Lexis 1923, which involves the awarding of costs for preparation of the record of proceeding arising out of a CEQA suit.
Continue Reading Recent Case Examines Cost Recovery for Record Preparation Under CEQA

By Janell M. Bogue

Recently, the Third Appellate District held that the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (“HCP”) was properly certified by the City of Sacramento and Sutter County (“City and County”) under CEQA and that the Department of Fish and Game (“DFG”) complied with the California Endangered Species Act (“CESA”) in issuing its incidental take permits. The case is Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018.
Continue Reading HCPs and Hawks and Snakes…Oh My!

By William W. Abbott

When it comes to administrative appeals of land use decisions, state law largely delegates to cities and counties the choice of being flexible or rigid on administrative appeals (e.g. tentative subdivision map approvals, conditional use permits, CEQA documents). Most cities and counties opt for a de novo review by the appellate body. This means that the appellate body effectively starts over on the decision, and it is empowered to make any decision it deems to be appropriate under the circumstances. As illustrated by the recent decision of Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (Browman Development Co., real party in interest) 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1764, de novo review may permit a project opponent to challenge in court the adequacy of the CEQA document, even though the appeal to the city council was on non-CEQA grounds.
Continue Reading Local Administrative Rules Leave Door Open for CEQA Challenge

By Janell M. Bogue

In a victory for the Regional Water Quality Control Boards and State Water Resources Control Board, the Second Appellate District revised its opinion in County of Los Angeles v. California State Water Resources Board (2006) 2006 Cal.App.LEXIS 1744 on November 6, 2006. Though several parties submitted petitions for rehearing, the court modified its previous October 5, 2006 opinion on its own and denied all the rehearing petitions.
Continue Reading Second Appellate District Modifies Opinion Regarding CEQA Analysis for NPDES Permits

By Janell M. Bogue

Recently, the Second Appellate District issued an opinion which may change how the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (“Boards” or “Regional Boards”) issue National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permits and comply with California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The case is County of Los Angeles v. California State Water Resources Control Board (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 985.
Continue Reading Second Appellate District Holds that NPDES Permits are Subject to Focused CEQA Review

By William W. Abbott
As noted in our recent article “The Importance of the Mundane: CEQA’s Small Details are Important as Well”, the Sixth Appellate District discussed how the lead agency thoroughly documented the genealogy of a later EIR from a series of prior CEQA documents. In Save our Neighborhood v. Lishman (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1288, the Third Appellate District recently made a similar observation when evaluating a legal challenge to an addendum which followed an earlier EIR. The court held that is important at the outset for the environmental document preparer to declare and document the pedigree relationship from earlier CEQA documents.
Continue Reading Pedigrees Are Not Just For Dogs: CEQA Documents Deserve Them As Well

By William W. Abbott & Janell M. Bogue
Closely following on the heels of County of San Diego, the California Supreme Court decided City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341, which also involved issues of the appropriateness of mitigation expenditures, this time by the California State University system. Here, the state university (CSU) assumed the legal position that it was not authorized to mitigate for offsite impacts, and on that basis, the Trustees rejected the feasibility of mitigation measures sought by a local city (Marina) and a base reuse authority (Fort Ord Reuse Authority or “FORA”).
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Schools CSU on Mitigation Infeasibility

By Joel Ellinwood, AICP
Recognizing that the often seemingly interminable delay by local agencies in development permit processing drives up costs of providing housing and other desirable projects, the development industry succeeded in persuading the legislature to impose what at first glance appear to be strict timelines for the agency to approve or disapprove projects. The timelines are given teeth by provisions which may result in projects being “deemed approved” if the agency fails to act within the time provided. However, as the recent case of Mahon v. County of San Mateo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 812 (modified June 19, 2006) illustrates, the teeth don’t seem to have much bite…
Continue Reading Take Notice!