Environmental Impact Report, CEQA

Public Agency May Begin Eminent Domain Proceedings Before Completing CEQA Review, But May Not Actually Acquire The Property Until...

by William T. Chisum, Jon E. Goetz, Jeffrey L. Massey, Leslie Z. Walker | Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard on 5/13/2013

A racetrack landowner challenged a regional park district’s plan to condemn part of the property for construction of a bayside trail, asserting that the park district was required under eminent domain law and the California...more

First District Holds CEQA Remedies Provision Allows Park District’s Eminent Domain Action To Proceed Pending Preparation of...

by Arthur F. Coon | Miller Starr Regalia on 4/25/2013

In Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. East Bay Regional Park District (4/12/13 1st Dist., Div. 5) _____ Cal.App.4th _____, 2013 WL 1491547, the First District Court of Appeal explored the scope and proper application of CEQA’s...more

No Relief Under CCP Section 473 For Missed Filing Deadline In CEQA Challenge

by Daniel Bane | Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on 4/23/2013

Alliance for the Protection of the Auburn Community Environment, et al. v. County of Placer, SCV0028200 (3rd Dist., February 18, 2013). In Alliance for the Protection of the Auburn Community Environment v. County of...more

Condemn Now, CEQA-Compliance Later? OK. Maybe....

by Brad Kuhn | Nossaman LLP on 4/19/2013

Acquiring property for public projects typically does not occur until after the project has received environmental approval. While this is the generally accepted rule – and it makes sense for a number of reasons – must a...more

Residential Project Exempt From CEQA Review Under Government Code Section 65457 As Consistent With Specific Plan For Which Program...

by Arthur F. Coon | Miller Starr Regalia on 4/11/2013

In a recently published opinion construing Government Code § 65457’s exemption from environmental review for a residential development consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR was previously certified, the First...more

Late Filing Of Appeal Of Environmental Impact Report And Project Approval Is Not Excused Under Code Of Civil Procedure Section 473

by Jeffrey L. Massey, Leslie Z. Walker | Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard on 4/11/2013

An organization sought to challenge a county’s project approval and certification of an Environmental Impact Report for a 155,000-square-foot building, but filed the case three days late. The trial court dismissed the case. ...more

Certain Residential Developments Exempt from CEQA Review: Greenhouse Gas Emission Issues Do Not Constitute New Information

by William R. Devine | Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis... on 4/9/2013

The recent California appellate court decision in Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin, Cal: Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 2013, upheld a City's affirmation that residential developments are exempt...more

Court Upholds CEQA Exemption for Residential Development - Minor Project Tweaks and New Greenhouse Gas Thresholds Don’t Trigger...

by Sarah E. Owsowitz, Charity B. Schiller | Best Best & Krieger LLP on 4/4/2013

In a recent case involving the California Environmental Quality Act, a state appellate court upheld a city’s decision to exempt from environmental review a residential development because it was consistent with a broader...more

New Significance Standard For Greenhouse Gas Emissions Is Not New Information Triggering Supplemental CEQA Review

by Marc Bruner, Stephen Kostka | Perkins Coie on 4/3/2013

In an opinion published on March 28, 2013, a California court of appeal answered three questions under the California Environmental Quality Act that the published decisions have not yet addressed...more

CEQA Reform Update

by Douglas Aikins | Hopkins & Carley on 4/2/2013

This year has seen more momentum for CEQA reform than in many previous years. California’s economy has placed a spotlight on the burdens that environmental regulations and litigation, particularly CEQA litigation, impose on...more

Court Of Appeal Finds County Approval Of EIR For Sand And Gravel Mining Project Does Not Violate CEQA

by Jeffrey L. Massey, Daniel J. O'Hanlon, Leslie Z. Walker | Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard on 4/1/2013

An organization challenged a county’s approval of a final revised environmental impact report for a project that would allow sand and gravel mining in the bed of the Cuyama River. The court of appeal affirmed the trial...more

UPDATE: Court Of Appeal Changes Its Mind On The Issue Of Whether A City Misdescribed A Project’s Objectives

by Jeffrey L. Massey, Eric Robinson, Leslie Z. Walker | Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard on 4/1/2013

On November 27, 2012, a court of appeal ordered a city to correct the defects in a project description and alternatives discussion in a final environmental impact report (“EIR”) because the court concluded the city had...more

Second District Rejects CEQA Challenge To EIR for Riverbed Sand And Gravel Mining Project, Upholds Santa Barbara County’s...

by Arthur F. Coon | Miller Starr Regalia on 3/12/2013

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...more

“Bare-Bones” CEQA Reform Bill (SB 731) Introduced By Senator Steinberg; Senator Evans Proposes Legislation to Further Expand CEQA

by Arthur F. Coon | Miller Starr Regalia on 2/27/2013

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...more

New CEQA Bill - Cure Or Band-Aid?

by Barbara Schussman | Perkins Coie on 2/26/2013

In response to a business community campaign calling for broad CEQA reform, Senate President Pro, California State Senator Tempore Darrell Steinberg, released his highly anticipated CEQA “modernization” bill (SB 731). So...more

Use Of Project-Specific Significance Thresholds Does Not Violate CEQA

by Marc Bruner, Julie Jones | Perkins Coie on 2/20/2013

The first published California Environmental Quality Act case of 2013, Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara, strongly endorsed a lead agency’s authority to use its own, project-specific significance thresholds in an...more

CEQA Update: Some Good News for Developers

by Hopkins & Carley on 2/18/2013

As compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) has grown increasingly more burdensome, costly and litigious over the past decade or so, 2012 brought some tangible good news. ...more

Are Courts Actively Limiting CEQA’s Scope In The Absence Of Meaningful Legislative Reform?*

by Arthur F. Coon | Miller Starr Regalia on 2/6/2013

While no California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) reform was achieved by the California Legislature in its last session, Senate President Pro-Tem Darrell Steinberg has indicated in a recently-issued statement that it...more

Supreme Court Sets Aside Land Use Plan EIR For Failure To Adequately Assess Long-Term Water Supplies Decision Clarifies Principles...

by Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard on 2/5/2013

The California Supreme Court on February 1, 2007, issued a long-awaited decision concerning assessment of water supplies during California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) review of proposed land-use plans....more

No Need To Address Adjacent Project In EIR Because Projects Are Separate, Have Different Proponents, And Serve Different Purposes

by Jeffrey L. Massey, Daniel J. O'Hanlon, Leslie Z. Walker | Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard on 1/28/2013

A city certified an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for development of a park. A conservancy group claimed the city wrongly defined the project to exclude a residential and commercial development project that was pending...more

Fourth District Applies CEQA’s “Murky” Piecemealing Tests To Reject “Project Definition” Challenge To Park Development in Banning...

by Arthur F. Coon | Miller Starr Regalia on 1/24/2013

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....more

City Erred In Certifying Environmental Impact Report That Misdescribed Project’s Objectives

by Jeffrey L. Massey, Eric Robinson, Leslie Z. Walker | Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard on 1/23/2013

In a case demonstrating the importance of a well-crafted statement of objectives, the appellate court held that a city erred in certifying a final environmental impact report (“EIR”) and approving a project because the EIR...more

Recent Cases Show How CEQA’s Applicability And Substantive EIR Requirements Are Determined By Meaningful Agency Discretion

by Arthur F. Coon | Miller Starr Regalia on 1/8/2013

It is a fundamental precept of CEQA that it applies only to the discretionary approval of a project. If an agency has no discretion to deny or shape the project to address environmental concerns, CEQA review would be a...more

CEQA Year In Review 2012

by Marc Bruner, Julie Jones, Stephen Kostka, Geoffrey Robinson, Barbara Schussman | Perkins Coie on 1/3/2013

In This Issue: - Project Approvals Triggering CEQA ..Chung v City of Monterey Park (2012) 210 CA4th 394 ..Tuolumne Jobs and Small Business Alliance v Superior Court) 210 CA4th 1006 (petition for review pending,...more

Supreme Court Case Involving CEQA’s “Unusual Circumstances” Exception to Categorical Exemptions Now Fully Briefed by Parties;...

by Arthur F. Coon | Miller Starr Regalia on 12/17/2012

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....more

Home

Legal News

Find a Lawyer

Browse Subjects

Subscribe

Pro Services

For Reporters

Environmental Impact Report › CEQA