CEQA

Subscribe to CEQA via RSS

By William W. Abbott

Paulek v. Department of Water Resources (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 35.

It is a subtle shade of grey which separates a generalized comment on a project from an objection sufficient to support a later CEQA lawsuit. The California Department of Water Resources crafted this distinction in a case involving a CEQA challenge to a dam remediation project at Perris Lake, located within the Lake Perris State Recreation Area. The project included the following components: remediation of structural deficiencies; replacement of the existing outlet tower; and construction of an emergency outlet extension. In response to comments on the DEIR, the lead agency separated out the emergency outlet extension for separate CEQA review. In response to the CEQA lawsuit, the state (as the lead agency) argued that petitioner Paulek had only posed questions regarding the project, but had not “objected” to the project as required by Public Resources Code section 21177 and therefore, lacked standing to pursue a CEQA claim. Reviewing the transcript and comments, the court of appeal concluded that a question could readily be understood as an objection, as would questioning of the lead agency which inquired as to whether a project would achieve its objectives. On the latter point, the appellate court held this was part of the CEQA process as CEQA requires a balancing of interests. [Comment: in practical terms, this case affirms the widely held belief that it is not difficult for a potential CEQA petitioner to satisfy the obligation to object to the project as a condition precedent to bringing a CEQA claim.]Continue Reading Objector’s Questioning Of Project Sufficient To Meet The Standing Requirement To Bring a CEQA Claim. Separating Out A Portion of the Original Project For Separate Environmental Review Did Not Result In Impermissible Project Splitting.

Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (November 24, 2014, D063288) ___ Cal.App.4th ___.

By William W. Abbott

In the first published decision to review a metropolitan planning organization’s Sustainable Communities Strategy, the Fourth Appellate District invalidated the EIR. This is a decision with potentially significant ramifications for many other EIRs as well. Continue Reading Court Affirms Inadequacy Of Programmatic EIR for SANDAG’s Sustainable Communities Plan, rejecting Alternatives and Lack Of Meaningful Mitigation Measures

By William W. Abbott

San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 498

Are general plan policies adopted by the citizens through an initiative, entitled to special consideration for purposes of determining consistency of projects with the general plan? Faced with that question in the context of planning policies adopted nearly 30 years ago in San Francisco, the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, declined to elevate the legal significance of citizen crafted measures as compared to other regulatory requirements adopted through traditional means. Approximately 30 years ago, the voters in San Francisco adopted new land use requirements. Jumping ahead three decades, the court of appeal had to resolve whether a major private redevelopment undertaking was consistent with the relevant city regulations and policies, including those adopted by the voters.Continue Reading Court Of Appeal Applies Traditional Deferential Standard Of Review To Questions Of General Plan And Consistency Determinations Including Requirements Enacted By The Local Voters

By William W. Abbott

Picayune Rancheria v. Brown (September 24, 2014, C074506) ___ Cal.App.4th ___.

Practitioners are familiar with the incredible breadth in the applicability of CEQA to numerous governmental agency actions. Agencies have been admonished by the California Supreme Court against early commitments to projects in advance of environmental review (Save Tara …

 By William W. Abbott, Diane Kindermann, Katherine J. Hart, Glen Hansen and Brian Russell

Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann’s 2014 3rd Quarter CEQA update, cumulative for the year. The newer decisions are highlighted in bold font. Although the Supreme Court issued its decision on limitations and CEQA (Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v The Superior Court), the court granted preview in another CEQA case, resetting again the number of CEQA cases pending at the court at six. Among other decisions, the appellate court concluded that the Governor was not subject to CEQA on certain tribal gaming decisions (Picayune Rancheria v. Brown), parsed another negative declaration finding only one flaw (Rominger v. County of Colusa), and addressed an important litigation question as to when the agency can recover record-related litigation costs (Coalition for Adequate Review v. City and County of San Francisco). To read the prior year cumulative CEQA review, click here: 2013

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE COMPLETE 2014 3RD QUARTER CEQA UPDATE.

Continue Reading 2014 CEQA 3rd QUARTER REVIEW

Yesterday, October 1, 2014, the California Supreme Court granted the Real Party in Interest and Respondent Friant Ranch, L.P.’s petition for review in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno regarding its master planned project approved by the County of Fresno earlier this year.  For more information on this case, go to:  http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2081570&doc_no=S219783

The information …

By William W. Abbott

A continuing reoccurring question for CEQA practitioners is: when is it appropriate to rely upon the regulatory scheme and permitting steps of independent regulatory agencies? The most ready criticism of that practice is that it involves deferred mitigation. That criticism has to be balanced against the recognition that subsequent to the enactment of CEQA, that there now exists a myriad number of local, state and federal regulatory agencies with special regulations and expertise and CEQA should integrate with existing regulatory practices where issues overlap. As the decision in Citizens Opposing a Dangerous Environment v. County of Kern (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 360 illustrates, perhaps an easier case can be made for regulatory reliance when a CEQA lead agency relies upon a federal agency with exclusive regulatory authority.Continue Reading Permissible CEQA Mitigation Includes Reliance Independent Agency Regulatory Review

By Glen Hansen

In Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held that the environmental impact report for the comprehensive plan to redevelop Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island in the San Francisco Bay, which was labeled a “project EIR” (a) satisfied the substantial evidence standard of review as to all of the required elements of an EIR; (b) addressed the environmental impacts of the proposed project to a degree of specificity consistent with the underlying activity being approved; and (c) properly allows for supplemental review that may be necessary in the future.Continue Reading It Says It’s A “Project” EIR. You Say It Should Be A “Program” EIR. Does The Label Even Matter?

 By William W. Abbott

The courts have been clear: the decisionmaking body has to consider the CEQA document before taking action to granting a discretionary approval. A recent court decision examines a variation on that practice when the approving body approved the CEQA document, but lacked the authority under the local code to do. How does the legislative body cure that error?Continue Reading An Appeal To The City Council Fails To Wash Away All CEQA Sins. Consideration Of Historical Resources In A Negative Declaration Falls Under The Substantial Evidence Test, Not The Fair Argument Test.

By Katherine J. Hart

In Coalition for Adequate Review v. City and County of San Francisco (September 15, 2014, A135512) ___Cal.App.4th ___, the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reversed in part and remanded in part, a trial court’s denial of the City’s ability to recover costs for the record of proceedings where the Coalition failed to include all relevant documents in the record the Coalition elected to prepare, despite the trial court’s denial of the petition for writ of mandate.Continue Reading Appellate Court Clarifies Costs Recovery Rules In CEQA Litigation