Litigation

Subscribe to Litigation via RSS

The EIR has long been the judicially-proclaimed “heart of CEQA” because it represents the culmination of the statute’s environmentally-protective purposes and objectives.   Yet the legal “expiration date” for the document embodying CEQA’s highest purposes is often subject to debate and confusion.  A public agency’s reliance on an “old” EIR is inherently fraught with the risk of legal challenge by project opponents.  But, as a recent First District decision reminds, such reliance may be perfectly proper under CEQA’s applicable rules, which focus in this context on not “reinventing the wheel” – the “wheel” being the EIR – without very good reason to do so; they also defer to the lead agency’s reasoned decision in this regard.
Continue Reading First District Rejects CEQA Challenge To City of Napa’s Reliance On Prior General Plan EIR For Housing Element Update Project

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

The Sixth District Court of Appeal, in a published decision filed September 30, 2013, reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant City of San Jose in an action challenging its “Envision San Jose” comprehensive general plan update.  California Clean Energy Committee v. City of San Jose (6th Dist. 2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1325.  The trial court found plaintiff CCEC failed to exhaust administrative remedies (as required to file a mandamus action challenging the general plan EIR) because it did not file an administrative appeal of the City planning commission’s certification of the EIR (as required by the City’s Municipal Code).  The Court of Appeal held this was in error because under CEQA’s delegation rules the planning commission couldn’t validly make a final EIR certification decision that could be appealed to the Council.
Continue Reading CEQA Standing and Exhaustion Rules Applied In Action Challenging City of San Jose’s General Plan Update

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”

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

The important legislative policy of expediting CEQA litigation sometimes inevitably conflicts with the policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits.  This conflict is never more sharp than when a CEQA plaintiff’s counsel seeks relief from a default or mistake that would otherwise terminate a CEQA action in the defendant’s favor.  In the recently-published decision in Comunidad En Accion v. L.A. City Council (2nd Dist., Div. 8, 9/20/13) 219 Cal.App.4th 1116, the Second District Court of Appeal resolved such a conflict by reversing the dismissal of a CEQA action and holding the trial court abused its discretion by denying discretionary relief under Code of Civil Procedure § 473 for counsel’s failure to timely comply with CEQA’s mandatory hearing request requirement due to an “excusable” failure to calendar the deadline.  Due to reasoning that seems to conflict with that of other decisions involving CEQA’s mandatory hearing request and statute of limitations provisions, and the case’s unusual posture – i.e., reversing a trial court’s discretionary CCP § 473 decision under the “abuse of discretion” standard – the decision is noteworthy.
Continue Reading Plaintiff’s Failure to Request CEQA Hearing Within 90 Days of Filing Petition Due to Lead Attorney’s “Excusable” Calendaring Error Warrants Discretionary Relief Under CCP § 473, Holds Second District

As we move past summer, into fall, the “back-to-school,” and football seasons, and toward daylight savings time – and a possible shutdown of the federal government – it is time to reflect and take stock of the really important things . . . like recent CEQA developments of interest:

  • SB 743 signed by Governor Brown.

On September 27, 2013, and as expected, Governor Brown signed into law SB 743, the year’s only significant, albeit incremental, “CEQA reform” measure.  For a summary of SB 743’s substantive content – as well as what the new law doesn’t do – see “CEQA, Sausages, And The Art of The Possible:  A Closer Look at SB 743’s General CEQA Reform Provisions” by Arthur F. Coon and Matthew C. Henderson, posted on September 16, 2013.Continue Reading Recent CEQA Developments In The Legislature And Courts

In a partially published opinion filed August 19, 2013, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a judgment denying a writ petition challenging a Wal-MartSupercenterthat would replace an existing Wal-Mart store.  Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville (8/19/13) 219 Cal.App.4th 832, No. C070448.  In the published portion of its opinion, the Court held the City’s EIR inadequately analyzed the project’s GHG emissions because substantial evidence did not support its finding that such emissions would be less than significant after mitigation.
Continue Reading Third District Holds CEQA Analysis of GHG Emissions Was Inadequately Quantified To Support EIR’s Mitigation Conclusion in Friends of Oroville

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 published opinion filed August 13, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal, Division Five, reversed a trial court judgment that had invalidated the Bay Area Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) adoption of 2010 “CEQA Air Quality Guidelines” because BAAQMD did not conduct CEQA review of their potential environmental impacts.  (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (1st Dist., Div. 5, 2013) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 2013 WL 4083221.)  In reinstating the 2010 Guidelines, which set forth new thresholds of significance for GHGs, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter), the Court of Appeal held that a public agency’s promulgation of thresholds of significance pursuant to the procedures of the CEQA Guidelines is not itself a “project” subject to CEQA review.  In so holding, and in rejecting the other arguments offered by plaintiff California Building Industry Association (CBIA) in support of the judgment, the Court touched on several significant CEQA issues, and in the process overturned a substantial CCP §1021.5 attorneys’ fee award to CBIA since it was no longer a successful party.
Continue Reading Adoption of CEQA Thresholds of Significance Is Not A CEQA “Project,” First District Holds In Reinstating BAAQMD’s 2010 Air Quality Guidelines