Reform

Subscribe to Reform via RSS

The Respondent City of Berkeley and Real Parties (Kapors) filed their joint Reply Brief on the Merits in the California Supreme Court in a much-watched categorical exemption case, Berkeley Hillside Preservation, et al. v. City of Berkeley, et al. (No. S201116).  The case arose from the City’s approval of a large, single-family hillside home as categorically exempt from CEQA notwithstanding project opponents’ contention that an exception to the exemptions applied due to the project’s potential for significant environmental impacts. (See my initial post on May 23, 2012 [“Supreme Court Will Review Categorical Exemption Exception in Berkeley Hillside Preservation Case”], and follow-up posts on August 2, 2012, and October 25, 2012.)
Continue Reading Supreme Court Case Involving CEQA’s “Unusual Circumstances” Exception to Categorical Exemptions Now Fully Briefed by Parties; Amicus Briefs Are Up Next in Berkeley Hillside Preservation Matter

Meaningful CEQA reform is a topic much discussed by politicians and stakeholders, but its realization remains elusive.  For example, in-fill exemptions are fettered with multitudes of complex and convoluted conditions and exceptions to the point of uselessness.  In addition, many of the law’s most basic concepts – e.g., standards of review for exemptions; standards for permissible deferred mitigation; requirements for EIR alternatives and cumulative impacts analysis; what constitutes a “project approval,” or the appropriate environmental “baseline” – are unclear and frequently misapplied.  And what constitutes an “abusive” or “frivolous” CEQA lawsuit brings much debate among CEQA attorneys.  The uncertainty that results from these circumstances can substantially delay, increase the costs of, and ultimately kill even thoughtful, well-designed development projects.  Yet CEQA has undeniably protected and improved the quality ofCalifornia’s environment over the last 40 years and reform proposals understandably tend to be viewed with skepticism; many fear “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.”
Continue Reading CEQA Standing Reform: Could Statutory Standing Requirements Feasibly Be Tightened To Bar Anti-Competitive Lawsuits Motivated By Economic Rather Than Environmental Concerns?

In a recent published decision addressing cumulative impacts, deferred mitigation, and water supply analysis issues, the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s most significant CEQA pronouncements may have been those addressing permissible remedies under Public Resources Code § 21168.9.  Specifically, in Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (4th Dist. 2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, the Court of Appeal made the following points:
Continue Reading Common Sense Reading of CEQA Remedies Statute Authorizes “Limited Writ” for Violations, Fourth District Holds, Rejecting Contrary Fifth District Decision

In a case notable for its unique conception of “meaningful discretion” for purposes of triggering CEQA review, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has created a split in authority that will undoubtedly require Supreme Court review (or depublication) to resolve.  In its partially published opinion in Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court of Tuolumne County (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., RPI) (5th Dist.10/30/12) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ 2012 WL 5350450, the Court of Appeal granted a writ of mandate directing the Superior Court to overrule a demurrer it had sustained without leave to two causes of action of a CEQA writ petition.  The petition challenged the City of Sonora’s action approving without alteration a qualified citizen-initiated ballot proposal — dubbed the “Walmart Initiative” — that would enact the necessary legislative approvals (general plan, specific plan and zoning enactments) to expand an existing 130,000-square foot Walmart store into a larger “Supercenter” that sold groceries and operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 
Continue Reading Impossible and Useless CEQA Review Is Required If City Opts Under Elections Code to Adopt Legislative Project Approvals Proposed By Qualified Citizen Initiative Petition – Fifth District’s Holding In Walmart Rejects Fourth District Precedent and Creates Split In Authority

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

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

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.
Continue Reading First District Reaffirms CEQA Is Concerned With Physical Impacts On The Environment, Not Economic Ones On Government Services