I’m pleased to announce that Chapter 25A., “California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),” of Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 3d (the “Book”), revised and updated as of October 2014 by this blog’s author, has now been published by Thomson Reuters. The revised CEQA chapter, which has been extensively rewritten, expanded, and updated with recent authorities, is currently available online through www.next.westlaw.com. Print versions will be shipped to hard copy subscribers of the Book shortly.
Continue Reading Revised CEQA Chapter of Miller & Starr Treatise Is Published
Uncategorized
Governor Brown Is Not CEQA “Public Agency,” Holds Third District In Indian Casino Case
By Arthur F. Coon on
In a published decision filed September 24, 2014, the Third District Court of Appeal (per Justice Robie) held that CEQA’s definition of a “public agency” that is subject to its requirements (see Pub. Resources Code, § 21063) applies only to governmental bodies, not individuals. Governor Brown was therefore not subject to CEQA compliance as a prerequisite to his concurrence in the Secretary of the Interior’s (“Secretary”) federal determination made under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“Indian Gaming Act”; 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.) that a new Indian gaming establishment in Madera County would not be detrimental to the surrounding community. Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (NP Fresno Land Acquisitions LLC, RPI) (3d Dist. 2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1416, No. C074506.
Continue Reading Governor Brown Is Not CEQA “Public Agency,” Holds Third District In Indian Casino Case
Parkmerced Project Upheld Against CEQA and General Plan Inconsistency Challenges In San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco
By Arthur F. Coon on
In a lengthy, mostly-unpublished opinion filed on August 14, 2014, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court’s judgment denying a writ petition challenging the Parkmerced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
California Supreme Court Holds CEQA Inapplicable To City’s Adoption Of Qualified Voter Initiative Approving Wal-Mart “Supercenter” Project
By Arthur F. Coon on
In a concise 15-page opinion filed August 7, 2014, the California Supreme Court reversed the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s judgment which had held that a city may not adopt a voter-sponsored initiative with potential environmental impacts unless it conducts a CEQA analysis. Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. The Superior Court of Tuolumne County (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Real Parties In Interest (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1029, Case No. S207173. (For relevant case background, my initial post analyzing, criticizing, and predicting that the Supreme Court would grant review of the Fifth District’s decision can be accessed at the following link: “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,” by Arthur F. Coon, posted November 8, 2012.)
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Holds CEQA Inapplicable To City’s Adoption Of Qualified Voter Initiative Approving Wal-Mart “Supercenter” Project
Whatever the EIR’s Name, CEQA’s Rules For Substantive Content and Subsequent Review Remain The Same: First District Upholds EIR for Treasure Island Redevelopment Project
By Arthur F. Coon on
On July 7, 2014, the First District Court of Appeal filed its published opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment upholding the EIR for the Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Project. Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco, et al. (Treasure Island Community Development LLC, RPI), 227 Cal.App. 4th 1036 (1st Dist. 2014).
Continue Reading Whatever the EIR’s Name, CEQA’s Rules For Substantive Content and Subsequent Review Remain The Same: First District Upholds EIR for Treasure Island Redevelopment Project
Spring 2014 CEQA Roundup
By Arthur F. Coon on
It’s that time of year again – business mixers, the Giants in first place in the NL west, the school year winding down, the NBA and NHL playoffs in full swing, coastal whale migrations, California bursting with beautiful weather, flora and fauna … and, of course, the Spring CEQA roundup! So here goes the latest potpourri of CEQA developments, big and small:
* New Rules of Court address Environmental Leadership development project litigation. On April 25, 2014, and as required by 2013 legislation (SB 743) the Judicial Council adopted new Rules of Court governing and aimed at significantly expediting litigation of CEQA challenges to a select class of “green” mega’ projects, i.e., those certified by the Governor as “environmental leadership development projects.” The ambitious new rules, which seek to shave years off the litigation timeline for CEQA suits challenging such projects, will become effective July 1, 2014. They consist of the adoption of Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.1365, 3.2200, 3.2220-3.2237, 8.700-8.705; renumbering and amendment of rules 3.1366 and 3.1367 as rules 3.2206 and 3.2207; renumbering of rules 3.1365 and 3.1368 as rules 3.2205 and 3.2208; amendment of rule 8.104; and repeal of rule 8.497.Continue Reading Spring 2014 CEQA Roundup
Second District Addresses Interesting CEQA and CESA Species Mitigation Issues in Lengthy Partially Published Opinion Upholding Resource Management and Conservation Approvals for Newhall Ranch Project, but “Hides its Work” on Significant Greenhouse Gas Issues in Unpublished Portion
By Arthur F. Coon on
In a lengthy, mostly published opinion filed on March 20, 2014, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment granting a writ of mandate, and upheld – as against state law challenges brought by a bevy of environmental plaintiffs – the EIS/EIR (EIR) and related resources management/conservation plan approvals of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) for the 12,000 acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site. Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Department of Fish and Wildlife (The Newhall Land and Farming Company, RPI) (2d Dist. 2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1105, 169 Cal.Rptr.3d 413, No. B245131. Two decades into the planning process, the controversial Northwestern LA County project ultimately contemplates the massive development of five villages containing residential, mixed-use and non-residential land uses, with up to 21,308 dwelling units (and 57,903 residents), 629 acres of mixed use development, 67 acres of commercial uses, 249 acres of business park uses, and numerous other public and open space uses and amenities, to be built out over a 25 to 30 year period. The land use approvals at issue in the case included a Resource Management and Development Plan, Spineflower Conservation Plan, associated Master Streambed Alteration Agreement, and related Incidental Take Permits (ITPs) issued by CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The 5,828 page EIR focused on the resource management and conservation plans required to be in place prior to the residential and commercial construction components of the project.
Continue Reading Second District Addresses Interesting CEQA and CESA Species Mitigation Issues in Lengthy Partially Published Opinion Upholding Resource Management and Conservation Approvals for Newhall Ranch Project, but “Hides its Work” on Significant Greenhouse Gas Issues in Unpublished Portion
Plaintiff’s Failure to Request CEQA Hearing Within 90 Days of Filing Petition Due to Lead Attorney’s “Excusable” Calendaring Error Warrants Discretionary Relief Under CCP § 473, Holds Second District
By Arthur F. Coon on
The important legislative policy of expediting CEQA litigation sometimes inevitably conflicts with the policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits. This conflict is never more sharp than when a CEQA plaintiff’s counsel seeks relief from a default or mistake that would otherwise terminate a CEQA action in the defendant’s favor. In the recently-published decision in Comunidad En Accion v. L.A. City Council (2nd Dist., Div. 8, 9/20/13) 219 Cal.App.4th 1116, the Second District Court of Appeal resolved such a conflict by reversing the dismissal of a CEQA action and holding the trial court abused its discretion by denying discretionary relief under Code of Civil Procedure § 473 for counsel’s failure to timely comply with CEQA’s mandatory hearing request requirement due to an “excusable” failure to calendar the deadline. Due to reasoning that seems to conflict with that of other decisions involving CEQA’s mandatory hearing request and statute of limitations provisions, and the case’s unusual posture – i.e., reversing a trial court’s discretionary CCP § 473 decision under the “abuse of discretion” standard – the decision is noteworthy.
Continue Reading Plaintiff’s Failure to Request CEQA Hearing Within 90 Days of Filing Petition Due to Lead Attorney’s “Excusable” Calendaring Error Warrants Discretionary Relief Under CCP § 473, Holds Second District
CEQA Determination Is Item of Business That Must Be Agendized Under Brown Act, Fifth District Holds
By Arthur F. Coon on
In a partially-published opinion, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the Merced County Planning Commission’s failure to mention in its posted agenda that it was considering adoption of a mitigated negative declaration (MND) in connection with a minor subdivision approval violated the Brown Act. (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced, et al. (5th Dist. 5/31/13) 216 Cal.App.4th 1167. Key points of the published portion of the opinion include:
Continue Reading CEQA Determination Is Item of Business That Must Be Agendized Under Brown Act, Fifth 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?”