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
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
By Arthur F. Coon on
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?”
CEQA’s Unusual Circumstances Exception To Small Structures Categorical Exemption Is Applied By Third District To Water Supply MOU With Indian Tribe
By Arthur F. Coon on
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.
Timing Is Everything: CEQA Notice of Exemption Must Be Both Facially Valid And Properly Filed To Trigger Short Limitations Period
By Arthur F. Coon on
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:
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
By Arthur F. Coon on
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.
Are Courts Actively Limiting CEQA’s Scope In The Absence of Meaningful Legislative Reform?
By Arthur F. Coon on
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.
Does CEQA Provide For Classes of Exempt Projects? Parties File Opening Merits Brief in Supreme Court in Berkeley Hillside Preservation
By Arthur F. Coon on
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.
First District Reaffirms CEQA Is Concerned With Physical Impacts On The Environment, Not Economic Ones On Government Services
By Arthur F. Coon on
The First Appellate District recently ordered partially published its opinion in City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2012) __ Cal.App.4th __, 2012 WL 2832858 (cert. for pub. 6/28/12), which applied some CEQA basics in clarifying what “impacts” of a project must be analyzed and mitigated under CEQA. In so doing, it helpfully sharpened the sometimes fuzzy boundaries of the statute’s outer reach as it is all too commonly applied.
Supreme Court Holds CEQA’s Exhaustion Requirement Applies To Categorical Exemption Challenges
By Arthur F. Coon on
In a common-sense resolution of a conflict on the issue in the courts of appeal, the California Supreme Court held in a June 14, 2012 decision that Public Resources Code § 21177(a)’s exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies requirement applies to actions challenging an agency’s determination that a project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Tomlinson v. County of Alameda(2012) 54 Cal.4th 281. In reversing the First District Court of Appeal’s contrary decision, the Supreme Court resolved the conflict between the decisions in Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165 (holding exhaustion requirement inapplicable to categorical exemption challenges) and Hines v. California Coastal Com. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 830 (holding exhaustion requirement applies to categorical exemption challenges).
How Recent CEQA Cases Show The Need For Legislative CEQA Reform
By Arthur F. Coon on
Posted in Administrative Record, Exemptions, Fees and Costs, Legislation, Litigation, Reform, Remedies
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