By William W. Abbott, Diane G. Kindermann, Glen Hansen, Brian Russell and Dan Cucchi

Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann’s 2015 3^rd Quarter CEQA update. This summary provides links to more in depth case write-ups on the firm’s blog. The case names of the newest decisions start with Section 3 and are denoted by bold …

By William W. Abbott

City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, S199557, Supreme Court of California, 2015 Cal. LEXIS 5291, August 3, 2015

The California Supreme Court cleared the air over one of its earlier CEQA decisions concerning the responsibility of CSU to consider and mitigate for offsite impacts. In 2006, the Court determined that CSU Monterey was not precluded from mitigating for offsite impacts occurring in the City of Marina. City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341. In the Marina decision, the court stated “[A] state agency’s power to mitigate its project’s effects through voluntary mitigation payments is ultimately subject to legislative control; if the Legislature does not appropriate the money, the power does not exist.” The University system is directed by a Board of Trustees, who, in reliance upon the above quoted language in Marina, determined that the University was not authorized to engage in offsite mitigation absent a specific legislative appropriation.Continue Reading WILL CSU EVER GRADUATE FROM CEQA SCHOOL?

By Glen Hansen

Save Our Uniquely Rural Community Environment v. County Of San Bernardino (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1179

In Save Our Uniquely Rural Community Environment v. County Of San Bernardino (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1179, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that a petitioner failed to show that a trial court abused its discretion when it awarded petitioner $19,176 in attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 despite petitioner’s request for $231,098, because petitioner (a) prevailed on only one of its numerous claims under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and local zoning ordinances; (b) excessively billed the case; and (c) failed to demonstrate why it was entitled to out-of-area attorney fee rates.Continue Reading “Outrageous” CEQA Attorneys’ Fees – Anatomy Of A 91% Haircut On Fee Recovery

By William W. Abbott, Diane Kindermann, Glen Hansen, Brian Russell and Dan Cucchi

Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann’s 2015 2^nd Quarter CEQA update. This summary provides links to more in depth case write-ups on the firm’s blog. The case names of the newest decisions start with Section 3 and are denoted by bold italic fonts. Highlights include the first decision (Paulek) to address exemptions following Berkeley Hillside, with this new decision succeeding in muddying CEQA legal waters. Keep Our Mountain Quiet reminds CEQA practitioners once again of the challenges when using negative declarations and will make life more difficult in the agritourism industry. And in litigation, the court of appeal affirms that a trial court decision as to an award of attorneys’ fees is rarely disturbed on appeal (Save Our Uniquely Rural Environment).Continue Reading 2015 CEQA 2nd QUARTER REVIEW