Alternatives

Subscribe to Alternatives via RSS

In a decision recently ordered published, the Fourth District Court of Appeal added to the growing progeny of Save Tara, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying the City of Irvine’s writ petition seeking to compel Orange County to prepare an EIR for its submittal of an application for state funding to expand a jail facility.  City of Irvine v. County of Orange (4th Dist., Div. 3, 2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 846.  County’s funding application under the State’s AB 900 process did not commit it to a definite course of action regarding the jail expansion, however, and was merely a preliminary funding step; it was therefore not the “approval” of a project requiring CEQA review.
Continue Reading All About “Commitment”: CEQA Review is Not Triggered By Orange County’s AB 900 Application For State Funding To Expand Existing Jail Facility, Which Was Not A Project Approval

In a recent decision extensively analyzing and applying CEQA’s rules on alternatives analysis, recirculation, and a petitioner’s burden to show agency error, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the Nevada County Superior Court’s judgment denying a writ petition challenging a commercial real estate project.  South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (3d Dist., 10/8/13) 221 Cal.App.4th 316.

Plaintiff “Smart Growth” challenged County’s approval of the 20-acre Higgins Marketplace Project being developed by Katz Kirkpatrick Properties (KKP) in southwestern Nevada County.  The Draft EIR (DEIR) analyzed subdivision of the site into 10 parcels, with approximately 80,000 square feet of retail uses, two fast food restaurants, 482 parking stalls, reservation of 5 acres for future development of 42,000 square feet of light industrial and office uses, and preservation of about 3.26 acres of wetlands with a 25-foot buffer.  It identified three significant and unavoidable impacts – two traffic impacts and one cumulative air quality impact – and found all other impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.  It analyzed four (4) project alternatives, including the CEQA-mandated no project alternative; a restricted turning access alternative to try to avoid SR 49 impacts; a business park alternative under current general plan designations (designed to reduce traffic and noise); and a redesign/reduced density alternative which would eliminate 6,500 feet of commercial development, relocate the fast food restaurants, and provide greater buffers to reduce biological, noise, visual and traffic impacts.Continue Reading Third District Holds CEQA Does Not Require Recirculation Based On Staff-Recommended Alternative Raised After Preparation of Final EIR

My October 31 presentation with David Ivester for the Bay Planning Coalition on recent CEQA developments brought home the fact that while there has been only partial and incremental legislative reform (in the form of SB 743), the appellate Courts have remained very active, publishing roughly 30 decisions over the past year.  I concur with David that legislative reform in 2014 (an election year) is unlikely, so it appears we will have to continue to look to the judiciary as the principal agent for change – for better or for worse.  David’s opening anecdote about his conversation with an intelligent, non-lawyer friend underscoring the need for CEQA reform was compelling –  something just seems wrong if, after a legion of environmental professionals (including agency staff, planners, environmental consultants, and legal counsel) has thoroughly vetted a development project and its environmental review, it still stands only a 50% chance of prevailing if challenged in Court.
Continue Reading “The Year in CEQA: A Look Back”

Nothing says “battle royal” quite like pitting several of California’s heavyweight environmental laws against one another in a “winner-take-all” litigation brawl.  The Sixth District Court of Appeal recently presided over such a conflict in Save Panoche Valley v. San Benito County (6/25/13) 217 Cal.App.4th 503, a published decision in which it affirmed a judgment rejecting CEQA and Williamson Act-based challenges to the County’s EIR and findings approving a large solar power plant project on 4,885 acres of cattle grazing land in San Benito County.
Continue Reading The New Range Wars: CEQA and the Williamson Act Are Deployed To Fight Global Warming Solutions In Save Panoche Valley

In a lengthy published opinion filed May 21, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal reversed a judgment granting a writ of mandate and upheld as legally adequate under CEQA the Marin Municipal Water District’s EIR for development and construction of a desalination plant in Marin County.  (North Coast Rivers Alliance, et al. v. Marin Municipal Water District Board of Directors (1st Dist., Div. 4, 2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614.  The Court rejected Petitioner North Coast Rivers Alliance’s (Alliance) challenges to the adequacy of the EIR’s analysis of the project’s aesthetic, land use, seismic, hydrology, water quality, biological resources, and cumulative GHG impacts, as well as its challenges to the EIR’s environmental setting description of baseline physical conditions and alleging that various of its mitigation measures were improperly deferred.  In light of its reversal of the judgment, the Court dismissed the District’s related appeal of a post-judgment order awarding attorneys’ fees to Alliance as moot.
Continue Reading CEQA School In Session: First District Reverses Judgment Invalidating EIR for Desalination Plant Project In North Coast Rivers Alliance

It is a fundamental precept of CEQA that it applies only to the discretionary approval of a project.  If an agency has no discretion to deny or shape the project to address environmental concerns, CEQA review would be a pointless and futile exercise, no matter what adverse environmental impacts of the project it might reveal.  Recent decisions continue to illustrate how an agency’s discretion under substantive law constrains CEQA’s applicability as a threshold matter, and how it can also affect the scope of required environmental review when CEQA does apply.
Continue Reading Recent Cases Show How CEQA’s Applicability And Substantive EIR Requirements Are Determined By Meaningful Agency Discretion

A unanimous Third District panel upheld SiskiyouCounty’s EIR for Roseburg Forest Products Co.’s (Roseburg) electricity cogeneration project involving expansion of its existing wood veneer manufacturing facility.  (Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center v. County of Siskiyou (3d Dist. 9/26/12) 210 Cal.App.4th 184.  In rejecting the CEQA challenge brought to the EIR by plaintiffs Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center (MSBEC) and Weed Concerned Citizens (WCC), the Court of Appeal resolved a key issue of first impression regarding the adequacy of an EIR’s alternatives analysis.  It also rendered numerous holdings reaffirming the substantial deference CEQA accords to an EIR’s analysis and conclusions, and reinvigorating CEQA’s “established [statutory] principle that there is no presumption that error is prejudicial.”  (Pub. Resources Code, § 21005(b).)  
Continue Reading EIR Satisfies CEQA Despite Minor Deficiencies and Inaccuracies Where Environmental Review Process Not Prejudiced, Third District Holds

The CEQA “baseline” rules have received a lot of judicial attention in the last several years, and rightly so.  The baseline or “environmental setting,” is the fundamental “benchmark” from which a project’s environmental impacts are measured.  The baseline also determines the scope of the “reasonable range of [project] alternatives” required to be considered in an EIR, since “alternatives shall be limited to ones that avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.”  (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15126.6(f), emph. added.)  By definition, adverse environmental conditions already existing as part of the baseline are not significant impacts of the proposed project.
Continue Reading First District Holds CEQA Baseline For Chevron Marine Terminal Lease Renewal Includes Existing Conditions and Structures, Finds No CEQA or Public Trust Violation In Lands Commission’s Alternatives Analysis

When a CEQA project proposes the modification or demolition of a historically-significant property, or the sale of such a property by a government agency owner, the potentially significant impacts to the historic resource must be analyzed and – where feasible – mitigated.  A recent decision involving the City of Carmel’s proposed sale of the historic Flanders Mansion illustrates what CEQA does – and doesn’t – require when a public agency proposes to sell historic property and rejects mitigation measures discussed in an EIR as economically infeasible.  (The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al. (6th Dist., January 4, 2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603.)

Since the early 1970’s, Carmel has owned a 35-acre nature preserve, and the Flanders Mansion property that is located within and surrounded on all sides by the preserve.  The preserve is an environmentally sensitive habitat area; the mansion that is located on a 1.252-acre parcel within the preserve is a 6,000 square foot Tudor Revival English Cottage, built in 1924, designed by noted architect Henry Higby Gutterson, and listed on the National Register of Historic Places.  The mansion has been vacant since 2003, but in previous years was used as a private residence, an art institute and office space.Continue Reading Rejecting CEQA Alternatives For Economic Infeasibility: Sixth District Lays Down the Law In Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel