CEQA

Subscribe to CEQA via RSS

By Glen Hansen

Roberson v. City of Rialto (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1499.

On July 15, 2008, the City of Rialto approved development of a commercial retail center to be anchored by a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The notice of the initial, July 1, 2008, public hearing before the city council on the project approvals was legally defective because the notice did not indicate that the planning commission had recommended the city council adopt the project approvals. (See Environmental Defense Project of Sierra County v. County of Sierra (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 877, 890–893.) In August 2008, Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth, a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation (“Rialto Citizens”), petitioned the trial court to invalidate and set aside the project approvals based in part on the defect in the notice of the July 1 city council hearing. On appeal, the court ruled against Rialto Citizens, holding that the petitioner made no attempt to show in the trial court, and the trial court did not find, that the defect in the notice was prejudicial, caused substantial injury to any of Rialto Citizens’ members, or that a different result was probable absent the defect. (See Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 916–921.)Continue Reading CEQA Case Barred: Petitioners Seeking Vindication of Same Public Interest as Prior Unsuccessful Claimant

By William W. Abbott

Town of Atherton v. California High-Speed Rail Authority (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 314.

Programmatic EIRs invariably invoke the uneasy question, of “how much information is enough?” This question is reminiscent of the challenge to the United States Supreme Court in defining obscenity and Justice Potter Stewart’s concurring opinion when he acknowledged the difficulty of articulating a standard, writing “I know it when I see it”, and then concluding that the movie in question was not obscene. The Third District Court of Appeal recently wrestled with CEQA’s equivalent to defining the undefinable, concluding that the level of detail on a programmatic EIR was sufficient.Continue Reading Third District Court of Appeal Upholds Level Of Detail In Programmatic EIR for Rail Corridor

By Katherine J. Hart

In California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, the Court of Appeal, Third District, held the City of Woodland’s (City) programmatic environmental impact report (EIR) was invalid on the following three grounds: (1) it failed to provide sufficient mitigation measures for urban decay impacts; (2) it failed to properly assess the feasibility of the mixed-use alternative and support the City’s rejection of the alternative; and (3) the City did not adequately study and disclose transportation, construction and operational energy impacts in the EIR. The appellate court refused to consider plaintiff’s general plan consistency arguments as they were not properly presented to the court.Continue Reading The Third DCA Turns Off The Lights and Directs A More Thorough Energy Analysis Be Prepared For Regional Shopping Center Project

By William W. Abbott

Citizens for a Green San Mateo v. San Mateo County Community College District (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1572.

Details do matter in CEQA litigation as reflected in the recent decision involving the application of the statute of limitations to bar a CEQA claim. Citizens for a Green San Mateo v. San Mateo County Community College District (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1572. The facts involve a facilities master plan adopted by the San Mateo County Community College District. The chronology begins in 2001 when the District adopted a master plan. The District updated the master plan in 2006. The 2006 plan called for building demolition and reconstruction, and extensive site redevelopment including modification to existing landscaping. A mitigated negative declaration was approved in conjunction with the updated master plan. From 2008 through 2010, the District developed, approved and awarded site specific construction contracts. To differing degrees, these plans and construction contracts referenced tree removal. In late 2010, the District awarded a contract for tree removal which began on December 29, 2010, continuing on into January. Citizens raised concerns in early January, and filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the District on July 1, 2011. Continue Reading An NOD Filed On A Facilities Master Plan In 2006 Applied To A 2010 Tree-Cutting Contract Awarded In Furtherance Of The Master Plan

By William W. Abbott

First, a micro history lesson. Hiram Johnson served as California’s governor from 1911 to 1917. For purposes of this blog, one of Hiram’s important contributions was his support for the constitutional amendment which added the right of initiative and referendum to the California Constitution. At the start of the 20th century, California joined the national populist movement embracing direct citizen involvement, thereby revolutionizing state politics. In California, the push for direct citizen involvement in the legislative process was designed in part to break the political control in Sacramento which was held by Southern Pacific Railroad, and by all counts the effort accomplished that goal. The initiative power was only one of several significant reforms championed by Johnson, but more on that later. For the curious, check out Hiram’s profile by the State Librarian: http://governors.library.ca.gov/23-hjohnson.html. For more on the history and significance of initiatives, check out the Initiative and Referendum Institute.Continue Reading One Hundred Years Later Hiram Johnson Dances on His Grave: California Supreme Court Upholds Initiative Rights Against CEQA Based Challenge

Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Game, et al. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1105, review granted and depublished (July 9, 2014), 2014 Cal.LEXIS 5032.

The California Supreme Court granted review and depublished the Court of Appeal opinion. (2014 Cal.LEXIS 5032.) The court agreed to hear the following questions: (1) Does the…

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

Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann’s 2014 2nd Quarter CEQA update. Our thirst for guidance from the California Supreme Court remains unquenched as the court still has five CEQA cases under review. In terms of other interesting developments during the second quarter, two courts of appeal ground through three of highly detailed cases: California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland, Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Game and Sierra Club v. County of Fresno. Read together, these cases cover much of CEQA’s fine parts. Thinking about impacts and mitigation is not the same as actual CEQA evaluation as the court observes in Lotus v. Department of Transportation. Finally, in terms of other developments the City of San Jose successfully defended its eighth addendum to the 1997 EIR for its airport master plan.Continue Reading 2014 CEQA 2nd QUARTER REVIEW

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

Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann’s 2014 1st Quarter CEQA update. It has been a quiet first quarter. One decision, Lotus v. Department of Transportation includes an interesting analysis on the use of construction commitments as part of the project description or as mitigation measures.Continue Reading 2014 CEQA 1st QUARTER REVIEW

By Diane G. Kindermann

In a lengthy and unanimous reversal of the trial court on ESA and CEQA issues in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Game, et al. (March 20, 2014, BS131347) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the second appellate district, Division Five, roundly upheld the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (“department”) certification of an environmental impact report (“EIR”) assessing the effects of a resource management plan, conservation plan, streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, in tandem with approval of each plan and issuance of the associated incidental take permits. The EIR related to general planning and conservation steps resulting from Los Angeles County’s prior approval of a 12,000 acre specific plan and neighboring 1500 acre conservation area in Ventura County. In its textured opinion, the appellate court relied heavily on facts in the trial court record to perforate all arguments raised by the Plaintiffs and Respondents Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Santa Clara River, Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment, California Native Plant Society, and Wishtoyo Foundation/Ventura Coastkeeper.Continue Reading Appellate Court Shuts Out Trial Court in CEQA/ESA Double Header under Deferential Standard of Review