In the first ever appellate court decision regarding CEQA and climate change, the First District Court of Appeal held the future development of a plan for greenhouse gas mitigation constitutes deferred mitigation. The Court also found the project description inadequate for failure to adequately describe whether the project would result in the refinery processing heavier crude because the EIR was internally inconsistent as well as inconsistent with other documents discussing the project.
Continue Reading 898,000 Metric Tons of Unmitigated CO2: Prime Conditions for the First Appellate Court Decision on CEQA and Climate Change
& Development
City’s New General Plan is not Cleared for Take-off, Returns to Base and is Grounded: Court Sets Aside Watsonville General Plan for Non Compliance with State Aeronautical Act and CEQA Requirements
An appellate court sets aside a newly adopted general plan on grounds of incompatibility with the State Aeronautics Act, and on the basis of failure to consider a lower growth alternative in the EIR.
It has long been said that the general plan is the constitution for development and growth. In reality, the general plan has, on a selected basis, been subverted to other special planning purposes such as coastal planning, preservation of San Francisco Bay and Lake Tahoe and, as in the subject to this article, airport planning.
Continue Reading City’s New General Plan is not Cleared for Take-off, Returns to Base and is Grounded: Court Sets Aside Watsonville General Plan for Non Compliance with State Aeronautical Act and CEQA Requirements
No Fooling: A Facially Valid NOE Triggers a 35-Day Statute of Limitations
Posted in CEQA
In the second time in two months, the California Supreme Court announced that once a Notice of Exemption (“NOE”) for a project is filed, the applicable statute of limitations is 35 days – regardless of the circumstances surrounding the NOE. On April 1, 2010, the Court held that a citizens’ suit challenging a project under the California Environmental Quality Act was barred by the 35-day statute of limitations contained in Public Resources Code section 21167 subdivision (d) because the City of Stockton had filed a facially valid NOE.
Continue Reading No Fooling: A Facially Valid NOE Triggers a 35-Day Statute of Limitations
Yes, Local Appeal Fees Apply to CEQA Appeals
Posted in CEQA, Local Government
By: Katherine J. Hart
As determined by the California Supreme Court 27 years ago, local agencies may impose a fee for the filing of an appeal of a CEQA decision so long as that fee is reasonable.
Continue Reading Yes, Local Appeal Fees Apply to CEQA Appeals
30 Days Left: CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Become Law on March 18, 2010
By Leslie Z. Walker
Today, February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law filed the Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines addressing greenhouse gas emissions (“Amendments”) with the Secretary of State. The Amendments require the quantification and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. (For more information about the Amendments, see OPR Finalizes Proposed CEQA Guidelines and Transmits Them to Resources Agency and CEQA Guidelines on Greenhouse Gases One Step Closer to Law.) The Amendments will become effective on March 18, 2010. Lead agencies should consult Guidelines section 15007 to determine when the Amendments apply to the agency’s actions.
Continue Reading 30 Days Left: CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Become Law on March 18, 2010
Paper or Plastic? Public Right Exception Allows Plastic Bag Producers to Challenge Negative Declaration for Environmental Ordinance
Posted in CEQA
By Leslie Z. Walker
A coalition of plastic bag producers avoided, at least for the moment, a major blow to business by using the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) to delay implementation of an environmental law banning the use of plastic bags in the city of Manhattan Beach.
Continue Reading Paper or Plastic? Public Right Exception Allows Plastic Bag Producers to Challenge Negative Declaration for Environmental Ordinance
Prop. 218 Proportionality Rule Relates to Special Benefits, Not Construction Costs
By Cori Badgley
Under Proposition 218 (Cal. Const. art. XIII D), special assessments shall not “exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on a parcel.” The courts have divided this into two general inquiries: 1) is a special benefit conferred by the improvement to be built through the assessment?; and 2) is the assessment proportional? In Town of Tiburon v. Bonander (2009) ____ Cal.App.4th ____, the court answered yes to the first question, but found that the division of costs was not proportional under Proposition 218.
Continue Reading Prop. 218 Proportionality Rule Relates to Special Benefits, Not Construction Costs
2009’s Top 10: Legislation, Regulations, & Cases
From the quick fix solutions for the Delta to CEQA analysis on mitigation deferral, impact fees and the feasibility of alternatives, to the scope of the Corps permitting authority, the following legislation, regulations, and cases from 2009 (listed first by type of document, then in chronological order) will have the most impact on water supply, water quality, and land use and entitlement practice (e.g., development) in California in the coming years. And remember, you read it here first!
Continue Reading 2009’s Top 10: Legislation, Regulations, & Cases
A Fair Argument and the Need to Prepare an EIR: A Timeless Tale
Posted in CEQA, Subdivision Map Act
By William W. Abbott
In 2001, the County of Inyo adopted an updated General Plan, which included a definition of “net acreage”. This definition excluded areas devoted to streets, roads and utilities. Over time, staff was concerned with interpretation of this provision as it related to utilities, and in 2005, the Board of Supervisors, based upon a negative declaration, amended the General Plan’s definition of net acreage, deleting the reference to utilities. The Board then acted to approve three parcel maps, each based upon negative declarations.
Continue Reading A Fair Argument and the Need to Prepare an EIR: A Timeless Tale
Reminder! Save the Date
Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update
Reserve your seat for one of three seminars taking place in 2010!
In January and February 2010 Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will present its annual complimentary educational program for clients and colleagues interested in current land use, environmental, and real estate issues affecting commercial and residential development, real estate acquisition, easements, leasing and property acquisition, and mining. In addition, the following hot topics for 2010 will be discussed:
Global Warming: CEQA Guidelines, Mandatory Reporting
Water Supply Legislation
CEQA Litigation: Alternative Analysis & Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Subdivision Map Extension
Interpreting Development Agreements
Endangered Species Act
Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will be presenting its annual program at three California locations: Sacramento, Modesto and Redding. Details for the seminars are below. We hope you can join us and look forward to seeing you there.
Modesto Conference
Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010
Location: Double Tree Hotel Modesto, 1150 Ninth Street
Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Redding Conference
Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010
Location: Hilton Garden Inn Redding , 5050 Bechelli Lane
Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Sacramento Conference
Date: Friday, February 12, 2010
Location: Sacramento Hilton Arden West, 2200 Harvard Street
Registration: 8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. with continental breakfast
Program: 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon
There is no charge for the programs and MCLE and AICP CM credits are available.
An RSVP will be required as space is limited. To reserve a spot, call our office at (916) 456-9595. When calling, please specify which conference you will be attending.
Continue Reading Reminder! Save the Date