CEQA

Subscribe to CEQA via RSS

By William W. Abbott
There is no middle of the road for Wal-Mart Stores. People are passionate on both sides, which includes the lawyers and consultants caught in the debate as it appears that Wal-Mart, as a single entity, generates more CEQA litigation than any other California applicant. Recent Wal-Mart litigation, Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 911, illustrates the importance of the small details in CEQA litigation…
Continue Reading The Importance of the Mundane in CEQA Litigation: It’s All in the Details

By William W. Abbott
Unlike other areas of CEQA practice, there has been less frequent and less critical analysis of what constitutes a valid finding of infeasibility. The recent decision in San Diego v. Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District begins to shed light on what is likely to be a new chapter of CEQA challenges.
Continue Reading Mitigation Infeasibility: New Thinking on an Old Issue

By Janell M. Bogue

As cities and developers look inward for new development opportunities, the dark cloud of CEQA is never far away. The legislature has attempted to facilitate infill opportunities by narrowing CEQA’s application. This case illustrates how far this infill exemption can reach. In Banker’s Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego (May 8, 2006) 2006 Cal.App.Lexis 684, developers proposed an urban infill project in the City of San Diego (“City”) near the northwest corner of Balboa Park. The project, a fourteen-story, fourteen-unit multi-family residential building, was approved by the City and found to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Guidelines section 15332. A neighborhood preservation group filed for a writ of mandate and after losing at the trial court level, the neighborhood group appealed, claiming that the project was not exempt from CEQA and that the City reviewed the project in a piecemeal fashion.
Continue Reading More Infill, More Problems: The Categorical CEQA Exemption for Infill Developments

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Turlock (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4th 273 Filed April 4, 2006. By Joel Ellinwood, AICP and Kate Hart For those awaiting a court’s interpretation of the standards of review and to see a court analysis of Section 21083.3 (Guidelines Section 15183) providing for a conditional exemption from CEQA for projects that are consistent with an approved general plan, the time has come. For those hoping to take advantage of the rollback prices at a new Wal-Mart Superstore in Turlock, the chance is sprung. Wal-Mart wanted to build a new store in the City of Turlock (“City”). In early 2003, Wal-Mart representatives inquired with City staff about developing a Wal-Mart Supercenter, which would include a full-service grocery department. The City staff provided Wal-Mart with entitlement and fee information as requested.
Continue Reading Will Turlock Ever Get Rollback Prices?

by William W. Abbott and Janell M. Bogue

As development continues to occur in areas outside of urbanized metropolitan areas developers are encountering more threatened or endangered species issues in their environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). A fundamental question which must be addressed is whether there are threatened or endangered species present in the project area and whether the project will affect those species. This is not always a simple question to answer, as it is not clear what studies are necessary in order to adequately analyze biological resources under CEQA. What standards are appropriate to measure the significance of the effects on endangered species? Furthermore, once threatened or endangered species are determined to be affected by the project and potentially significant impacts to biological resources are identified, how does one provide for adequate mitigation in order to mitigate those impacts to a less than significant level? This paper discusses recent CEQA cases dealing with these questions and provide insight on how to address endangered species concerns in order to comply with CEQA.
Continue Reading Analyzing and Mitigating Biological Resources and Endangered Species Impacts Under CEQA: An Update

by William W. Abbott and Janell M. Bogue

Properly administered impact fee programs can operate to streamline CEQA review of later development projects. At the same time, impact fee programs which are not implemented in accordance with the original expectations or which are founded upon unrealistic assumptions may offer the lead agency and affected applicant little or no real relief. Significant cases decided over the last five years illustrate how this can play out.
Continue Reading Impact Fee Programs as Effective Tools for CEQA Mitigation: An Update

by Elias E. Guzman

In a San Diego court, a petitioner recently argued that it failed to file its opening brief because the City held the administrative record for “ransom.” Yes, ransom. Well, in the world of administrative writ actions, there are two absolutes regarding the preparation of the administrative record. Someone has to prepare it and someone has to pay for it.
Continue Reading City Holds Administrative Record for Ransom?