By Parissa Florez and Michael Sherman on Posted in CEQA
Okay, maybe slightly longer than 60 seconds. The point being, though, that CEQA case updates really should not read like law school case briefs. Long discussion of the lower court’s findings? No thank you. Point/counterpoint for each and every argument made by petitioners? No one has time for that. Get in, get out and move … Continue Reading
On Thursday, December 10, environmental organizations filed a complaint against Kern County in California Superior Court alleging that the County violated the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) by preparing a “grossly inadequate” Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for its new oil and gas rules. The Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, and the Natural Resources Defense … Continue Reading
In a process that took nearly three years to complete, on Monday, November 9, the Kern County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a significant change to its oil and gas regulations. The change affects Title 19 of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance and provides a streamline permitting process for oil and gas operations. The change … Continue Reading
Today, July 30, the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”) filed a complaint in Sacramento County Superior Court against the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”). CBD claims, among other things, that DOGGR failed to comply with Senate Bill 4 (“SB 4”) by releasing its Final EIR regarding oil and gas well stimulation treatment … Continue Reading
Yesterday, July 1, 2015, pursuant to Senate Bill 4 (“SB 4”) the State Oil & Gas Supervisor Steven Bohlen, head of the Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”), certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) for oil and gas well stimulation treatments. As presented in the Final EIR, for the … Continue Reading
In Saltonstall, et al. v. City of Sacramento, No. C077772 (Cal. Ct. App. 3rd Dist., Feb. 18, 2015), the Third Appellate District affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court in holding that the City of Sacramento did not violate the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) by beginning construction of the downtown arena. This appeal comes … Continue Reading
In Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco, No. A137828 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist., July 7, 2014), the First Appellate District upheld an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the renovation of Treasure Island in San Francisco Bay. Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island (“CSTI”) argued that the City … Continue Reading
In Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose, No. H038781 (Cal. Ct. App. 6th Dist., June 6, 2014), Citizens Against Airport Pollution (“CAAP”) appealed the trial court’s ruling that the City of San Jose’s (“City”) approval of the eighth addendum to the 1997 Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Airport Master Plan did not … Continue Reading
In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Cal. Ct. App. 5th Dist. May 27, 2014), the Fifth Appellate District found fault with the County of Fresno’s (County) review of the Friant Ranch Project (Project) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The appellate court concluded that the County’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not sufficiently … Continue Reading
In San Francisco Beautiful v. City and County of San Francisco, No. CPF11511535, (Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist. May 30, 2014), the First Appellate District upheld San Francisco's application of a categorical exemption to exempt from CEQA review the installation by AT&T of 726 utility cabinets on public sidewalks.
AT&T applied for a categorical exemption for its "Lightspeed" project (the Project), which is intended to upgrade broad band Internet speed and capabilities. The majority of the utility cabinets would be approximately 48 inches high, 51.7 inches wide, and 26 inches deep. (Slip Op. at p. 2.) Although AT&T had not determined precisely where the new utility cabinets would be located, the new cabinets would be "paired" with or placed within 300 feet of existing AT&T utility cabinets. (Ibid.) In response to community concerns, AT&T also promised to affix a 24-hour-a-day contact number for reporting graffiti directly to AT&T and a system in which AT&T personnel would remove the graffiti. (Ibid. at p. 3.) In 2010, AT&T submitted a revised application for a categorical exemption pursuant to section 15303(d) of the CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines), and the San Francisco Planning Department (SFPD) determined that the Project was categorically exempt from CEQA, leading to the present litigation. The trial court denied plaintiffs' challenge, and they appealed.… Continue Reading
In Trisha Lee Lotus v. Caltrans (Jan. 30, 2014), the First District Court of Appeal reversed a Humboldt County Superior Court decision, and ruled that a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) environmental impact report (EIR) failed to adequately analyze the significance of the project’s impacts to old-growth redwood root systems in a state park. Caltrans … Continue Reading
In South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada, the Third Appellate District held that South County Citizens for Smart Growth’s (“Smart Growth”) claim that the County of Nevada violated CEQA by failing to prepare and recirculate a revised draft EIR was unfounded because the new alternative project proposal did not constitute “significant … Continue Reading
In Latinos Unidos de Napa v. City of Napa, the First Appellate District affirmed the City of Napa’s determination that it need not prepare an EIR to analyze revisions to the City’s housing element of its general plan because the environmental effects had previously been analyzed in a 1998 Program EIR. Latinos Unidos de Napa … Continue Reading
In California Clean Energy Committee v. City of San Jose, the Sixth District Court of Appeal recently held that the City Council of the City of San Jose (“City”), not the Planning Commission, was required to certify an EIR for the City’s general plan update because the City Council held the power to approve the … Continue Reading
Authored by Carissa Beecham In Friends of Oroville, et al. v. City of Oroville, et al. (“Friends of Oroville”) (filed and published in part on August 19, 2013), the Third District Court of Appeal partially reversed the trial court in finding that the City of Oroville’s (“City”) EIR improperly analyzed the greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions … Continue Reading
In Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (filed August 5, 2013) (“Neighbors”), a majority of the California Supreme Court justices announced a new rule regarding the baseline agencies may use when conducting a CEQA analysis of a project’s environmental impacts. Specifically, the Court ruled that CEQA does not prohibit the exclusive … Continue Reading
Decision expected to provide guidance for public agencies in determining the type of environmental review required for such bans. In Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. County of Marin, et al. (published in part by the First Appellate District on July 25, 2013) (“Marin”), the court upheld the County of Marin’s (“County”) ordinance prohibiting certain retail establishments … Continue Reading
My colleague, Barbara Brenner, posted an environmental law alert on the recently published CEQA decision issued by the California Third District Court of Appeal in Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Ctr. v. County of Siskiyou, No. C064930, 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1088 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2012). The case is significant because it provides precedent … Continue Reading
The California Supreme Court’s ruling on Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach decided two important issues regarding the interpretation and application of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). First, the Court decided the city of Manhattan Beach was not required to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) under CEQA before enacting … Continue Reading
Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley’s recent ruling (PDF) in the case challenging East Bay Municipal Utility District’s (EBMUD) approval of its updated water supply plan is a reminder of the importance of fully disclosing potential impacts of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), even when the CEQA project is a programmatic … Continue Reading
