Administrative Record

Subscribe to Administrative Record via RSS

In a partially-published opinion filed September 29, 2014, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed an order and judgment permitting the County of San Diego to recover actual labor costs incurred for an attorney and paralegals to take over and complete preparation of an administrative record in a CEQA case where the petitioner had elected, but failed, to do so. The Otay Ranch, L.P. v. County of San Diego (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 60, Case No. D064809.
Continue Reading Attorney Labor For Preparing CEQA Administrative Record Is Recoverable Cost Where Specialized Knowledge Required, Holds Fourth District in Partially Published Opinion

In a published decision filed September 15, 2014, the First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a trial court’s post-judgment order granting an unsuccessful CEQA petitioner’s motion to tax the entire $64,144 cost bill of respondent City.  Coalition for Adequate Review v. City and County of San Francisco (1st Dist. 2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1043, Case No. A135512.
Continue Reading CEQA Administrative Record Preparation Costs – Who Pays and When? First District Provides Guidance In Coalition For Adequate Review v. City and County of San Francisco

Earlier this month, I posted an entry regarding the latest legislative effort at meaningful CEQA reform.  See New CEQA Reform Bill (SB 1451) Proposes Positive Changes That Would Reduce “Late Hit” Document Dumps and Extend Indefinitely Current Standing Requirements For After-Formed Organization Plaintiffs, by Arthur F. Coon, posted May 1, 2014.  I was genuinely enthused about SB 1451’s content and its prospects, thoughts I shared at length with a Daily Journal reporter who contacted me shortly after my post in connection with a story she was writing on the proposed law.

Unfortunately, the prospect of meaningful legislative CEQA reform offered by SB 1451 was short-lived.  Less than a week after my post, the bill’s author, Senator Hill, requested cancellation of a May 6 hearing on the bill that had been set before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.  My Daily Journal reporter contact tabled her story; for all intents and purposes, it appears that SB 1451 is “dead in the water.”  A contact in the environmental consulting industry relates that a trusted source has advised that political pressure from organized labor interests killed the bill.  This outcome is certainly not surprising, but it is nonetheless disappointing to proponents of meaningful and common-sense CEQA reform.Continue Reading CEQA “Late Hit” Reform Bill (SB 1451) Is Withdrawn By Author

A CEQA reform bill (SB 1451) introduced and authored by seven (7) Democrats (Senators Correa, Galgiani, Hill, Hueso, Roth, and Steinberg, and Assembly Member Mullin) would amend Public Resources Code § 21177 to heighten standing requirements for CEQA plaintiffs by requiring them to raise issues of alleged CEQA noncompliance much earlier in the administrative process to avoid forfeiting the right to later sue on such issues.
Continue Reading New CEQA Standing Reform Bill (SB 1451) Proposes Positive Changes That Would Reduce “Late Hit” Document Dumps And Extend Indefinitely Current Standing Requirements For After-Formed Organization Plaintiffs

On October 16, 2013, 60 days after the request was submitted, the California Supreme Court denied Infill Builders’ request to depublish Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (5th Dist. 2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, a decision concerning the scope of the “common interest” exception to privilege waiver by disclosure in CEQA cases.  Ceres, which has been heavily criticized by the CEQA/land use bar, holds that while CEQA’s administrative record statute (Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.6) does not impliedly abrogate privilege, any privilege (including attorney-client and work product protection) is waived as to documents shared between the lead agency’s and project developer’s counsel at any time prior to project approval.  This holding conflicts with the holding and reasoning of the Third District Court of Appeal in California Oak Foundation v. County of Tehama (3d Dist. 2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1222-1223, which held that the common interests of the agency and the developer – for example, in producing a legally-sufficient EIR that will withstand legal challenge – could protect reasonably necessary disclosures of privileged information between them from being deemed a waiver.
Continue Reading Depublication of Controversial CEQA Common Interest Case Denied by Supreme Court, Leaving Troublesome Split of Authority

While Real Party in Interest Wal-Mart Stores did not elect to seek California Supreme Court’s review of the Fifth District’s controversial decision in Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, the California Infill Builders Federation (Infill Builders) submitted an August 16, 2013 letter to the high court requesting that the opinion be depublished pursuant to Rule 8.1125 of the California Rules of Court.  Infill Builders’ 6-page letter, authored by noted CEQA attorney Tina Thomas, “requests that the Court depublish the Opinion because it creates a new bright line rule rendering the common-interest doctrine inapplicable to pre-project approval communications between a project proponent and a decisionmaking agency.”  It asserts this “uniform, inflexible rule is inconsistent with CEQA and the statutes establishing the common-interest doctrine” in numerous respects.
Continue Reading Depublication Of Fifth District CEQA Decision Creating Conflict On Common Interest Doctrine Sought By Infill Builders

In a partially-published appellate writ decision filed July 8, 2013, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that while CEQA’s administrative record statute (Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.6) does not impliedly abrogate the lead agency’s attorney-client privilege (or any other privileges), any privilege is waived as to any documents shared with the project developer’s counsel prior to project approval.  (Citizens For Ceres v. The Superior Court of Stanislaus County, City of Ceres, et al. (Real Parties) (5th Dist. 2003) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, Case No. F065690.  According to the Court, such documents are not protected from disclosure – and consequent inclusion in the administrative record in CEQA cases – by the common interest doctrine (derived from Evid. Code, §§ 912 and 952) “because the interests of a lead agency and a project applicant diverge fundamentally while the project application is pending….”  The Court’s decision left to another day the issue whether “administrative draft” documents may properly be excluded from the administrative record (because the trial court had not yet ruled on the issue), but appeared to express skepticism on that score in an unpublished portion of its opinion.
Continue Reading No Common Interest In CEQA Compliance Prior To Project Approval, Holds Fifth District In City of Ceres Decision That Conflicts With Third District’s California Oak Decision And Common Practice

Some CEQA practitioners think the sheer volume of published CEQA opinions demonstrates the need for reform – res ipsa loquitur, so to speak.  Recently a litigation mentor of mine, a brilliant man who was at the forefront of CEQA litigation more than 20 years ago when he left my firm to teach law, asked me: “What’s with this Berkeley Hillside Preservation case? Are EIRs really now required for single family homes?”  (Note:  The Supreme Court has now granted review of that case.)  Another leading CEQA practitioner and author views recent legislative efforts at CEQA streamlining and litigation reform as largely ineffectual, and sees no meaningful reforms on the horizon.  I tend to share these views, as indicated at the conclusion of a May 22, 2012 post I co-authored with Nadia Costa, on the Fifth District’s Consolidated Irrigation District  (“CID”) decision, “Breaking Down CEQA’s Administrative Record Statute: Fifth District Explains What’s In and What’s Out.”  This is the “follow-up” post explaining why that case struck a “CEQA reform” chord with me.
Continue Reading How Recent CEQA Cases Show The Need For Legislative CEQA Reform

In a highly detailed and analytical opinion, the Fifth District Court of Appeal addressed and answered numerous novel legal questions regarding the proper interpretation and application of Public Resources Code § 21167.6(e), CEQA’s administrative record statute.  Consolidated Irrig. Dist. v.. Superior Court, 205 Cal.App.4th 697 (2012).  In brief, the court of appeal rejected the blanket contention that discovery is never allowed in a CEQA case, and also provided significant guidance as to the proper content of the administrative record.
Continue Reading Breaking Down CEQA’s Administrative Record Statute: Fifth District Explains What’s In and What’s Out

The proper content of CEQA administrative records is frequently a subject of intense dispute in CEQA litigation, resulting in partial certifications by agencies, and motions to strike and augment by various parties.  In a recent case addressing a number of other interesting CEQA topics, the Fifth District Court of Appeals devoted a significant portion of its published opinion to administrative record issues, in order to “provide guidance to practitioners in subsequent cases so that they will proceed more efficiently in the expenditure of their own time and that of the courts.”  (Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 61.)

The Court prefaced its “discussion of the rules of law concerning administrative records” by positing a two-step inquiry for determining the admissibility of evidence in general in CEQA cases:  (1) is the item in question part of the administrative record pursuant to Public Resources Code, § 21167.6(e)? and (2) if not, is the item admissible under the rules applicable to extra-record evidence?  (Id. at 62.)
Continue Reading CEQA Administrative Records: Fifth District Opinion Elucidates Rules Governing Contents and Disputes