Reform

Subscribe to Reform via RSS

In its terse, no-nonsense opinion in Alliance For the Protection of the Auburn Community v. County of Placer, et al. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 25, ordered published on April 2, 2013, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment entered after sustaining a demurrer to a CEQA action without leave on statute of limitations grounds…

In Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. East Bay Regional Park District (4/12/13 1st Dist., Div. 5) 215 Cal.App.4th 353, the First District Court of Appeal explored the scope and proper application of CEQA’s remedies provision – Public Resources Code § 21168.9 – in the context of an eminent domain action filed before completion of necessary environmental review for the condemning agency’s project.  In a partially-published opinion, the Court affirmed a judgment vacating the East Bay Regional Park District’s (“District”) CEQA exemption finding, and ordering it to prepare an EIR for a project to acquire and construct a segment of the Bay Trail on eight acres of shoreline property, while allowing the District’s eminent domain action to proceed.
Continue Reading First District Holds CEQA Remedies Provision Allows Park District’s Eminent Domain Action To Proceed Pending Preparation of Project EIR So Long As Property Not Actually Acquired

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

The Second District Court of Appeal upheld  the County of Santa Barbara’s Final Revised Environmental Impact Report for a 30-year conditional use permit (CUP) for the Diamond Rock mine project.  Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013 2nd Dist., Div. 6), 213 Cal.App.4th 1059 (filed 1/10/13, modified 2/8/13).  The CUP allowed excavation of 500,000 tons of sand and gravel each year by real party Troesch Materials, Inc. from the often dry bed of the Cuyama River.  Save Cuyama Valley lost its writ of mandate challenge to the EIR, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Continue Reading Second District Rejects CEQA Challenge To EIR for Riverbed Sand And Gravel Mining Project, Upholds Santa Barbara County’s Discretion to Formulate Project-Specific Threshold of Significance, and Finds EIR’s Erroneous “Not Significant” Conclusion Nonprejudicial

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

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

Hot on the heels of Governor Jerry Brown’s 2013 State of the State address, which raised the need for CEQA reform (as noted in my immediately-preceding blog post), a trio of former California governors has echoed and amplified Brown’s observations.  In an op-ed special to The Sacramento Bee published February 3, 2013, former Governors George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson and Gray Davis – all members of the non-partisan, non-profit Southern California Leadership Council – decried CEQA’s abuses and called for its meaningful reform and modernization, stating: “As three former California governors who often have differing views, on this point we wholeheartedly agree, and join with Gov. Brown in his call to modernize CEQA.”
Continue Reading Perfect Storm for CEQA Reform In 2013? Former Govs Weigh In

In his 2013 State of the State address delivered on January 24, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown focused on education, health care, jobs, and the interrelated areas of climate change, water, transportation and the high speed rail project. Continuing an express agenda of CEQA reform originating during his time as Oakland’s mayor, the Governor stated the following in his discussion on jobs:  “We also need to rethink and streamline our regulatory procedures, particularly the California Environmental Quality Act.  Our approach needs to be based on consistent standards that provide greater certainty and cut needless delays.”
Continue Reading CEQA Reform Goal Is Noted In Governor’s State of the State Address

Harmonizing CEQA’s rules and principles is, to say the least, not always easy, and is often quite challenging.  The relevant concepts are often in tension, or are so malleable that they can be argued or construed to conflict.  For example, environmental review must commence at the earliest “practicable” time, in order to make fully informed decisions at a project’s formative stages and avoid undue project “momentum” or “post-hoc rationalizations”; yet it should not occur so early that it would be “speculative” or not “meaningful” due to lack of sufficient data from a crystallized development project proposal.  To cite another example, a “project” refers to the “activity being approved,” but also to the “whole of an action” and not just individual discretionary permits that trigger CEQA review.  And, a “project approval” occurs at the lead agency’s earliest commitment to a “definite course of action” regarding a proposed project.  Fuzzy concepts like these can be difficult to apply, and supply ample fodder for CEQA litigation.  They tend to produce heavily fact-specific decisions offering unclear guidance to lead agencies and project proponents.
Continue Reading Fourth District Applies CEQA’s “Murky” Piecemealing Tests To Reject “Project Definition” Challenge To Park Development in Banning Ranch Conservancy