Mitigation

Subscribe to Mitigation via RSS

“And all this science, I don’t understand
It’s just my job, five days a week”
— Elton John/Bernard Taupin,
“Rocket Man”

Having seen years of their lofty regional planning efforts come crashing back to Earth, San Diego government entities have had little to be thankful about so far this holiday season on the CEQA front.  In an October 29 decision later ordered published on November 24, 2014, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the San Diego County Superior Court’s judgment setting aside San Diego County’s 2011 general plan update and related program EIR (PEIR).  Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (4th Dist., Div. 1, 2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152.Continue Reading Fourth District Publishes Another CEQA Decision Setting Aside San Diego Lead Agency’s EIR For Failure To Analyze And Mitigate GHG Emissions Per 2005 Executive Order; SANDAG Announces It Will Seek Review Of Related Adverse Decision

I had occasion earlier this week to attend oral argument at the California Supreme Court in the Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley case (No. S201116), which involves issues concerning the proper interpretation of and standard of judicial review for the “unusual circumstances” exception to categorical exemptions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines.  The…

In a 2-1 published opinion filed November 24, 2014, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 1, affirmed and modified the trial court’s judgment granting writ petitions by plaintiff groups challenging the EIR for the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG) 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2050 RTP/SCS). Cleveland National Forest Foundation, et al. v. San Diego Association of Governments, et al. (2014) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 2014 WL 6614394.  SANDAG’s RTP was the first of its kind approved under SB 375, and it sought to better align transportation, land use, and housing so as to achieve regional GHG emissions reductions targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).  SANDAG’s assigned targets are to reduce per capita CO2 emissions 7% below 2005 levels by 2020, and 13% below 2005 levels by 2035.
Continue Reading Analysis Of GHGs Under CEQA Just Got More Complex: Fourth District’s Split Decision Invalidates Program EIR For SANDAG’s 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy

Perhaps foremost among the judicially recognized fundamental constraints on lead agencies’ power to impose various types of mitigation measures on project approvals in the CEQA process is the “doctrine of unconstitutional conditions” explicated in the Nollan/Dolan cases and their progeny.

The CEQA Guidelines explicitly acknowledge applicable constitutional requirements that mitigation measures must have an “essential nexus” to a legitimate government interest, and that those imposed as ad hoc exactions must bear a “rough proportionality” to the project’s adverse impacts.  (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15126.4(a)(4)(A), (B), citing Nollan v. California Coastal Com’n (1987) 483 U.S. 825, 837; Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374, 391; Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854, 866-877.)Continue Reading The Limits of CEQA Mitigation – Recent Judicial Applications of Nollan and Dolan

In a published decision filed October 31, 2014 (Paulek v. California Department of Water Resources (4th Dist., Div. 2, 2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 35, Case No. E060038), the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the Riverside County Superior Court’s judgment denying a petition for a writ of mandate challenging an EIR for the Perris Dam Remediation Project.  The Department of Water Resources’ (“DWR”) DEIR proposed three activities:  (1) remediating the dam’s structural seismic deficiencies; (2) replacing its outlet tower; and (3) creating a new “Emergency Outlet Extension.”  The FEIR addressed a modified project including only the first two components and splitting the emergency outlet extension into a separate project and environmental review process.
Continue Reading Fourth District Addresses CEQA Issues Concerning Standing, Mitigation,Baseline, Piecemealing, And Responses To Comments In Affirming Judgment Upholding Perris Dam Remediation Program EIR

On October 1, 2014, the California Supreme Court  granted the Real Party in Interest developer’s petition for review in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (5th Dist. 2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 704, now unciteable and pending review as Supreme Court Case No. S219783.  The significant portions of the Court of Appeal’s decision were previously summarized in detail several months ago in this blog.  (See “Fifth District Decides Significant CEQA Air Quality/Health Impact Analysis and Mitigation Issues in the Sierra Club v. County of Fresno” by Arthur F. Coon, posted June 16, 2014.)
Continue Reading Supreme Court Adds Another CEQA Case To Its Docket, Will Review Fifth District’s Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (“Friant Ranch”) Decision

A number of recent legislative and regulatory developments in or related to CEQA will impact public agencies, developers, and practitioners in the coming year. Some significant recent developments include:

SB 743 Implementation/New Ways to Measure Transportation Impacts under CEQA. 

As previously discussed in this blog (see OPR Mulls Change in CEQA Traffic Metrics, OPR to Review Specific CEQA Guidelines Topics Proposed for 2014 Update Solicits Public Input, CEQA, Sausages, And the Art of The Possible: A Closer Look at SB 743’s General CEQA Reform Provisions), the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research is currently analyzing potential alternatives to the “level of service” metric for analyzing transportation impacts under CEQA, as mandated by SB 743.  OPR has released a “preliminary discussion draft” of a new section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines which sets forth the new metric, along with revisions to Appendix F identifying potential alternatives and mitigation measures.Continue Reading Fall 2014 CEQA Roundup: Legislative and Regulatory Developments

In a lengthy published decision filed September 9, 2014, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s judgment denying a writ petition challenging Colusa County’s adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).  The project approved was a subdivision of four adjacent parcels, comprising 159 acres of industrially-zoned land near I-5, into 16 parcels ranging from just over one to 31 acres each.  Rominger v. County of Colusa (Adams Group Inc., Real Party in Interest) (3d Dist. 2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 690, Case No. C073815.  Key holdings and “takeaways” from the 48-page opinion, which was authored by noted CEQA jurist Justice Ronald Robie, included:
Continue Reading Tentative Map Approval Is CEQA “Project”, Holds Third District In Published Opinion Also Addressing Prejudicial Error, Agency Discretion To Adopt Thresholds Of Significance, Deferred Mitigation, And Other Significant CEQA Issues

In a lengthy, mostly-unpublished opinion filed on August 14, 2014, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court’s judgment denying a writ petition challenging the Parkmerced Development Project.  San Francisco Tomorrow, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al. (Parkmerced Investors Properties, LLC, Real Parties in Interest) (1st Dist., Div. 2, 2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 498.  A 50-page portion of the 75-page opinion, which contained the court’s detailed analysis and rejection of appellant San Francisco Tomorrow’s (“SFT”) numerous general plan inconsistency and CEQA claims, was not certified for publication.  The court did certify for publication those portions of its decision:  (1) analyzing and rejecting SFT’s direct challenges to the legal adequacy of City’s general plan; (2) holding the trial court did not err in sustaining a demurrer to SFT’s procedural due process cause of action challenging the project’s development agreement; and (3) holding the trial court did not err in including in the administrative record hearing transcripts of public meetings of the Board’s Land Use and Economic Development Committee (“LUEDC”) at which the project was considered and discussed.
Continue Reading Parkmerced Project Upheld Against CEQA and General Plan Inconsistency Challenges In San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco

Alleged land use conflicts between newly proposed land uses and existing nearby airports are nothing new, and can produce heated CEQA battles as project opponents often raise “life safety” issues as potential project impacts.  This scenario was exemplified in a recent Fifth District Court of Appeal decision, which it ordered certified for partial publication after it was initially filed on June 30, 2014 as an unpublished opinion.  Citizens Opposing a Dangerous Environment v. County of Kern, et al. (North Sky River Energy, LLC, Jawbone Wind Energy, LLC, et al., Real Parties in Interest) (5th Dist. 2014), 228 Cal.App.4th 360.  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate and upholding the adequacy of Kern County’s EIR and its project approvals (rezoning and a CUP) for a 339-megawatt, 116 wind turbine generator (“WTG”) wind farm project (the “Project”) to be constructed near a private (and apparently unpermitted) airport (the Kelso Valley Airport, or “KVA”) in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area.
Continue Reading Kern County’s CEQA Mitigation Measure For Wind Farm Project Relying On FAA Review and Determination of Aviation Safety Impacts Is Legally Feasible, Holds Fifth District