Legislation

Subscribe to Legislation 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

Ruling from the bench at a March 29, 2013 hearing, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch found a key provision of an ambitious CEQA reform law championed by Senator Darrell Steinberg to be unconstitutional.  Specifically, Judge Roesch found “the provisions of AB 900 found in Public Resources Code [section] 21185 are so inconsistent with the constitutional mandates of where mandamus cases may be brought that it must be struck down as unconstitutional.”  A detailed written statement of decision explaining the judge’s reasoning is expected sometime later this month. 
Continue Reading AB 900 CEQA Reform Law Partially Struck Down

On February 22, 2013, Senator President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg introduced SB 731, a bill the Senator’s website press release described as “outlining the detailed intent that strengthens [CEQA’s] protection of the state’s environment and residents while modernizing the law to help the growth of California’s economy.”  Notable features of SB 731 include:
Continue Reading “Bare-Bones” CEQA Reform Bill (SB 731) Introduced By Senator Steinberg; Senator Evans Proposes Legislation to Further Expand CEQA

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

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

Governor Jerry Brown was recently quoted in a Capitol Alert piece as calling legislative reform of CEQA “the Lord’s work” – hopefully he didn’t mean the quest for the Holy Grail – although he admitted in the same article he hadn’t yet read the latest bills proposing to limit its scope.  In the short time since then, SB 317 (the most significant effort at CEQA reform this year) appears to have died in the waning days of this Legislative session.  While “hope springs eternal,” meaningful legislative reform of CEQA thus continues to prove elusive.
Continue Reading Are Courts Actively Limiting CEQA’s Scope In The Absence of Meaningful Legislative Reform?

Following up on previous posts (see February and May archives), the City of Berkeley Respondents and the Kapors (Real Parties in Interest) filed their joint 80-page opening brief on the merits on July 27 in Berkeley Hillside Preservation, et al. v. City of Berkeley, et al., California Supreme Court.  The case will decide whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the City’s approval of the Kapors’ two-story, 6,478 square foot single family residence, and 3,394 square foot garage, on a 29,714 square foot parcel zoned Single Family Residential District–Hillside Overlay.
Continue Reading Does CEQA Provide For Classes of Exempt Projects? Parties File Opening Merits Brief in Supreme Court in Berkeley Hillside Preservation

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 series of decisions that had agency planners and environmental consultants scratching their heads, various courts of appeal last year held that every CEQA document must take account of existing conditions in assessing environmental impacts.  (See Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Assoc. v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (6th Dist. 2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1351; Pfeiffer v.