Remedies

Subscribe to Remedies via RSS

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).
Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds CEQA’s Exhaustion Requirement Applies To Categorical Exemption Challenges

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

When a CEQA project proposes the modification or demolition of a historically-significant property, or the sale of such a property by a government agency owner, the potentially significant impacts to the historic resource must be analyzed and – where feasible – mitigated.  A recent decision involving the City of Carmel’s proposed sale of the historic Flanders Mansion illustrates what CEQA does – and doesn’t – require when a public agency proposes to sell historic property and rejects mitigation measures discussed in an EIR as economically infeasible.  (The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al. (6th Dist., January 4, 2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603.)

Since the early 1970’s, Carmel has owned a 35-acre nature preserve, and the Flanders Mansion property that is located within and surrounded on all sides by the preserve.  The preserve is an environmentally sensitive habitat area; the mansion that is located on a 1.252-acre parcel within the preserve is a 6,000 square foot Tudor Revival English Cottage, built in 1924, designed by noted architect Henry Higby Gutterson, and listed on the National Register of Historic Places.  The mansion has been vacant since 2003, but in previous years was used as a private residence, an art institute and office space.Continue Reading Rejecting CEQA Alternatives For Economic Infeasibility: Sixth District Lays Down the Law In Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel

CEQA’s information disclosure provisions are so integral to its statutory scheme that conventional harmless error analysis does not apply.  It is the rare violation of CEQA that will not be found a prejudicial and reversible abuse of discretion.  Public Resources Code section 21005(a) declares state policy “that non-compliance with the information disclosure provisions of this division which precludes relevant information from being presented to the public agency, or noncompliance with substantive requirements of this division, may constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion … regardless of whether a different outcome would have resulted if the public agency had complied ….”  Case law teaches that CEQA violations resulting in omission of “material necessary to informed [agency] decision-making and informed public participation” are prejudicial errors.  (Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1392.)

A recent decision illustrates that CEQA error can still be found non-prejudicial, and development project approvals can survive, even under this exacting standard.  (Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949.)  In Schenck, after a series of administrative hearings, two administrative appeals, and five iterations of a mitigated native declaration (MND), Sonoma County adopted an MND and approved a large warehouse and distribution facility project.  The development was a relocation of an existing facility of the applicant, beverage company Mesa, to a parcel within County’s airport industrial area adjacent to a creek.

In response to plaintiff Schenck’s petition for writ of mandate challenging the approval, the trial court found just a single CEQA violation: the County had not given notice to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) of the hearing and intent to adopt the final MND.  The trial court issued a writ ordering notice to be given, retaining jurisdiction to determine compliance.  County gave the notice, the BAAQMD responded that County’s air quality analysis met appropriate standards, that the project’s operational emissions fell below BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance, and that it supported the adopted mitigation measures.  The County filed a return showing compliance, the trial court entered final judgment, and plaintiff Schenck appealed.
Continue Reading CEQA Doesn’t Require The Killing of Mice With Missiles: Non-Prejudicial Notice Errors Do Not Require Project Set-Aside

Everyone seems to talk about abuses of the CEQA process and meaningful CEQA reform, but nothing ever seems to get done, much to the chagrin of developers who find themselves the target of CEQA litigation.  The California legislature may have taken a small, but important, step toward rectifying this situation with its 2010 enactment of Public Resources Code Section 21169.11.  The statute was enacted as part of an urgency measure, to curb litigation abuses and provide relief from frivolous claims made in CEQA actions.  (SB 1456 (Stats. 2010, Ch. 496.))

In brief, the new statute provides:

  • Where a court determines a claim made in the course of a CEQA action is frivolous, i.e., totally and completely without merit, it “may impose an appropriate sanction, in an amount up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000)”
  • “The sanction may be imposed upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties responsible for the violation.”
  • The sanctions motion may be made “at any time after a petition has been filed pursuant to this division, but at least 30 days before the hearing on the merits.”
    Continue Reading CEQA Sanctions Statute: Effective Deterrent To Abuse?