Exemptions

Subscribe to Exemptions via RSS

Repetitive CEQA review and analysis is expensive, unnecessary, unproductive, and inimical to the goals of certainty and finality in the environmental review process.  In 2011, to address these concerns in the infill development context, the legislature enacted SB 226 adding Public Resources Code §§ 21094.5 and 21094.5.5 to CEQA.  These sections provided for streamlined CEQA review for qualifying “infill” projects and directed OPR to prepare, and to transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for adoption, implementing guidelines.

Under the authorizing legislation, a qualifying “infill project” is one that includes residential, retail/commercial, transit, school, and/or public office buildings and is “located within an urban area on a site that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.”  (Pub. Resources Code, § 21094.5(e)(1)(B)).  The legislation further provides that “[a] lead agency’s determination pursuant to this section shall be supported by substantial evidence.”  (§ 21094.5(a)(1).)Continue Reading Towards Not Reinventing The CEQA Wheel: Resources Agency Adopts New CEQA Guidelines For Streamlined Review of Urban Infill Development

In a recently published opinion construing Government Code § 65457’s exemption from environmental review for a residential development consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR was previously certified, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment rejecting a challenge to the City of Dublin’s use of the exemption to approve AvalonBay Communities, Inc.’s (“AvalonBay”) 7.2-acre development within the larger Dublin Transit Village Center.  Concerned Dublin Citizens, et al. v. City of Dublin, et al. (2013 1st Dist., Div. 3) 214 Cal.App.4th1301.
Continue Reading Residential Project Exempt From CEQA Review Under Government Code Section 65457 As Consistent With Specific Plan For Which Program EIR Previously Certified; First District Also Holds New GHG Thresholds Do Not Constitute “New Information” Requiring Supplemental EIR For Specific Plan

After receiving three separate petitions for review, including petitions from real parties Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and the City of Sonora, the California Supreme Court voted unanimously on February 13, 2013 to grant review of the Fifth District’s controversial decision in Tuolomne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court (Wal-Mart Stores), Supreme Court Case No. S207173.  The League of California Cities had also requested depublication of the Fifth District’s decision while the petitions for review were pending.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Will Review CEQA Decision From Fifth District In Wal-Mart Citizen Initiative Case

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

The Respondent City of Berkeley and Real Parties (Kapors) filed their joint Reply Brief on the Merits in the California Supreme Court in a much-watched categorical exemption case, Berkeley Hillside Preservation, et al. v. City of Berkeley, et al. (No. S201116).  The case arose from the City’s approval of a large, single-family hillside home as categorically exempt from CEQA notwithstanding project opponents’ contention that an exception to the exemptions applied due to the project’s potential for significant environmental impacts. (See my initial post on May 23, 2012 [“Supreme Court Will Review Categorical Exemption Exception in Berkeley Hillside Preservation Case”], and follow-up posts on August 2, 2012, and October 25, 2012.)
Continue Reading Supreme Court Case Involving CEQA’s “Unusual Circumstances” Exception to Categorical Exemptions Now Fully Briefed by Parties; Amicus Briefs Are Up Next in Berkeley Hillside Preservation Matter

In a case notable for its unique conception of “meaningful discretion” for purposes of triggering CEQA review, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has created a split in authority that will undoubtedly require Supreme Court review (or depublication) to resolve.  In its partially published opinion in Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court of Tuolumne County (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., RPI) (5th Dist.10/30/12) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ 2012 WL 5350450, the Court of Appeal granted a writ of mandate directing the Superior Court to overrule a demurrer it had sustained without leave to two causes of action of a CEQA writ petition.  The petition challenged the City of Sonora’s action approving without alteration a qualified citizen-initiated ballot proposal — dubbed the “Walmart Initiative” — that would enact the necessary legislative approvals (general plan, specific plan and zoning enactments) to expand an existing 130,000-square foot Walmart store into a larger “Supercenter” that sold groceries and operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 
Continue Reading Impossible and Useless CEQA Review Is Required If City Opts Under Elections Code to Adopt Legislative Project Approvals Proposed By Qualified Citizen Initiative Petition – Fifth District’s Holding In Walmart Rejects Fourth District Precedent and Creates Split In Authority

As Halloween approaches, there is a “mixed bag” of CEQA developments to briefly note:

  • Just a week after extending its time to act on the City of Hayward’s petition for review of the First Appellate District’s (Div. 3) decision in City of Hayward v. Trustees of the California State University, (Case No. S203939) (“City of Hayward”) the California Supreme Court, on October 17, 2012, granted the petition and held the case (Case No. S203939), deferring further action pending its consideration and disposition of a related issue in City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, Case No. S199557.  The City of Hayward case, which is now unciteable as precedent due to the grant of review, was summarized in my blog post of July 12, 2012 (“First District Reaffirms CEQA Is Concerned With Physical Impacts on the Environment, Not Economic Ones on Government Services”).  The Supreme Court’s docket identified the relevant issue under consideration in City of San Diego as:  “Does a state agency that may have an obligation to make “fair-share” payments for the mitigation of off-site impacts of a proposed project satisfy its duty to mitigate under [CEQA] by stating that it has sought funding from the legislature to pay for such mitigation and that, if the requested funds are not appropriated, it may proceed with the project on the ground that mitigation is infeasible?”

Continue Reading CEQA Roundup: Supreme Court Grants and Holds in City of Hayward; Lengthy Answer Brief Submitted In Berkeley Hillside Preservation; Senator Steinberg Aims for 2013 Reform

As the regulated community eagerly awaits completion of briefing at the Supreme Court in the Berkeley Hillside Preservation case, the Courts of Appeal continue to decide CEQA categorical exemption cases – as is their nondiscretionary duty – without the high court’s forthcoming guidance.  The most recent such case is the Third District’s published decision in Voices for Rural Living v. El Dorado Irrigation District (Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, RPI) (10/4/12, 3d Dist.) 209 Cal.App.4th 1096, No. C064280.  The case illustrates application of the unusual circumstances exception to categorical exemptions in a fairly unusual context – a water supply MOU for an already-built and operating Indian casino and hotel in El Dorado County – and offers interesting insights on CEQA exemption and water supply issues, as well as issues involving the nature and authority of LAFCO and special districts in the context of annexation approval conditions.
Continue Reading CEQA’s Unusual Circumstances Exception To Small Structures Categorical Exemption Is Applied By Third District To Water Supply MOU With Indian Tribe

In a partially published opinion filed September 14, 2012, the Fifth District Court of Appeal revived a CEQA lawsuit the trial court had dismissed as time-barred on demurrer because it was filed 55 days after the City of Visaliafiled a notice of exemption (“NOE”).  The case – Coalition for Clean Air v. City of Visalia (VWR International, LLC) ) (Sept. 14, 2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 408, Case No. F062983 – may be viewed as “blurring” a “bright line” rule stated by the Supreme Court just two years ago, but it provides a valuable reminder to CEQA action respondents and real parties of the “t”’s that must be crossed and the “i”’s that must be dotted to ensure they can take advantage of CEQA’s short statute of limitations period (35 days) when relying on an exemption.  The  decision’s key points on this important issue include:
Continue Reading Timing Is Everything: CEQA Notice of Exemption Must Be Both Facially Valid And Properly Filed To Trigger Short Limitations Period

The same appellate panel that decided the controversial Berkeley Hillside Preservation case (which is currently in the briefing stage of Supreme Court review) rendered another significant categorical exemption decision in its recently published opinion in Robinson v. City and County of San Francisco (T-Mobile West Corporation, et al., Real Parties) (July 26, 2012, 1st Dist., Div. 4) 208 Cal.App.4th 950.  This opinion was more deferential to the local agency’s exemption decision, and seemingly more circumspect regarding both its practical impact on the utility of categorical exemptions and its acknowledgment of the split of judicial authority in the standard of review applicable to exceptions to exemptions.
Continue Reading First District Holds CEQA’s Class 3 Categorical Exemption Applies To Installations of Small Telecommunications Equipment On Existing Utility Poles, Recognizes Split In Case Law On Standard of Review For Cumulative Impact Exception