In its October 14 decision in Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego, the Fourth Appellate District weighed in for the second time this year on whether a city ordinance regulating medical marijuana dispensaries is subject to CEQA review. As in the first case, which was brought by the same petitioner (Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of Upland, decided on March 25), the appeals court held that the ordinance was not a “project” for purposes of CEQA. Continue Reading
On October 7, I had the privilege of presenting the annual CEQA and Land Use Litigation Update at the League of California Cities’ Annual Conference & Expo in Long Beach. The Annual Conference is the state’s largest gathering of city officials from throughout California, and addresses a host of cutting-edge legal issues in the field of municipal law. Downey Brand again prepared a detailed paper summarizing all of the published CEQA and Land Use court decisions from May through August 2016, as well as cases pending before the California Supreme Court.
On, September 12, 2015, the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued its opinion in Citizens for Ceres v. City of Ceres (2016) _Cal.App.5th_. The opinion authorized real-parties-in-interest to recover costs of record preparation, as long as the record was prepared in a manner prescribed by Public Resources Code section 21167.6. The petitioners in this action challenged the EIR for a new shopping center anchored by a Wal-Mart on a variety of grounds, including that the project did not adequately mitigate for urban decay impacts and that the EIR failed to set forth an adequate long-term plan for solid waste disposal. The trial court upheld the EIR on all grounds but rejected real-party-in-interest Wal-Mart’s motion to recover costs associated with preparing the record, based on Public Resources Code section 21167.6 and the principles elucidated in Hayward Area Planning Assn. v. City of Hayward (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 176. Continue Reading
The extent to which the federal Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) preempts CEQA has been a topic of much scrutiny recently. Currently pending before the California Supreme Court is Friends of the Eel River v. North Coast Railroad Authority (Case No. S222472), which will address whether the ICCTA preempts CEQA review of a state agency’s proprietary acts with respect to a state-owned or funded rail line (which is at issue in both that case and in Town of Atherton v. California High Speed Rail Authority (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 314). The case has been fully briefed since April 2015 and is awaiting oral argument.
In the meantime, a September 20 decision by the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) has addressed ICCTA preemption in the context of a proposed crude-by-rail facility. These facilities have garnered much public attention in California and resulted in CEQA challenges to several proposed projects. In this decision, the STB denied Valero Refining Company’s petition, finding that the ICCTA did not preempt the City of Benicia’s decision to deny certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) and deny a conditional use permit (CUP) for a crude-by-rail offloading facility at Valero’s Benicia refinery. The decision provides insight into the federal government’s view of CEQA preemption, which will be of interest to the Supreme Court and the parties to the Friends of the Eel River case, as well as to lead agencies and project proponents contemplating crude-by-rail and other rail-related facilities in California. Continue Reading
On September 19, in a long-awaited and unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District. The opinion, authored by the Court’s newest justice, Leondra Kruger, resolves a split among the Courts of Appeal regarding the proper procedures for addressing changes to a project that have already been subject to CEQA review. The Court clarified that such changes are not subject to an independent, “new project” threshold test, and that an agency’s decision that no EIR is required as a result of proposed modifications to a previously-approved project is subject to review for substantial evidence. The decision also affirmed the validity of CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and its application of the principles of finality and subsequent review to projects originally approved with a negative declaration. Continue Reading
On August 31, the First Appellate District issued its decision in Coastal Hills Rural Preservation v. County of Sonoma, which centered on the applicable standards and appropriateness of proceeding on a subsequent mitigated negative declaration (SMND), rather than an environmental impact report (EIR) under CEQA, where changes had been incorporated in a religious facility use permit that was originally reviewed under a mitigated negative declaration (MND). The appeals court affirmed the trial court judgment for the lead agency, Sonoma County, ruling that use of the SMND was appropriate and that the revised permit was not inconsistent with the County’s “Resources and Rural Development” general plan designation. Continue Reading
On August 26, Governor Brown signed SB 734 into law, extending by two years the sunset date of the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 (the “Act”) – from January 1, 2017 to January 1, 2019 – and making two significant changes to the Act.
The Act, codified at Public Resources Code sections 21178-21189.3, promotes environmentally sustainable development having significant economic benefits by providing for streamlined judicial review of “environmental leadership development projects.” Such leadership projects include certain residential, commercial, cultural, sports, and recreational projects located at infill sites that (1) are certified as LEED Silver or better, (2) result in a minimum investment of $100 million in California, (3) create high-wage, highly skilled jobs that pay prevailing wages and living wages, and help reduce unemployment, and (4) do not result in any net additional emission of greenhouse gases. Continue Reading
In its July 21 decision in Walters v. City of Redondo Beach, the Second Appellate District rejected a challenge to the use of a Class 3 categorical exemption for a proposed car wash and coffee shop in the City of Redondo Beach. The decision is helpful for lead agencies, as it clarifies that the general effects of an operating business, such as noise, parking, and traffic, cannot serve as unusual circumstances in and of themselves.
Redondo Auto Spa filed an application with the City of Redondo Beach (City) to build a 4,080 square-foot, full-service car wash and small coffee shop on a property zoned for commercial uses. In approving the project, the City issued a conditional use permit (CUP), found that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA review under the Class 3 exemption for a “store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances,” (CEQA Guidelines section 15303(c)), and imposed several conditions concerning noise, operating hours, and capacity (a vehicle limit of 10,000 cars per month).
Five neighboring homeowners filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the City’s CEQA exemption determination and issuance of the CUP. The trial court upheld the City’s actions and denied the writ petition, and the neighbors appealed. Continue Reading
In its August 12 decision in Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle v. City of San Jose, the Sixth Appellate District rejected a claim that the fair argument standard should apply to a lead agency’s determination regarding whether a resource is a historical resource for purposes of CEQA. In doing so, it became the second appellate court (after the Fifth Appellate District) to adopt this rule.
In 2013, the City of San Jose proposed to demolish the Willow Glen Railroad Trestle – a wooden railroad bridge built in 1922 to service industry – and replace it with a pedestrian bridge that would be part of the City’s trail system. The City issued an initial study and mitigated negative declaration for the project that found no impact on historical resources. This finding relied on two documents obtained by the City in 2004, when it proposed a trail project that did not include demolition of the Trestle: (1) a one-page letter from a State Historic Preservation Officer stating that the proposed project would not affect any “historic properties”; and (2) a one-page evaluation by a consulting architectural historian who opined that the Trestle’s design was based on standard plans for wood trestle bridges, the trestles and superstructure were likely replaced during the previous 30 to 40 years, and the Trestle was “a typical example of a common type and has no known association with important events or persons in local history.” Continue Reading
On remand from the California Supreme Court, the First Appellate District has issued its second ruling in California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. In this case, CBIA challenged BAAQMD’s 2010 “CEQA Air Quality Guidelines”—specifically, the Guidelines’ thresholds and methods for assessing the effects of siting new sensitive receptors (residences) near existing sources of toxic air contaminants and other harmful air emissions, such as freeways. Last year, the California Supreme Court held that CEQA “does not generally require an agency to consider the effects of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project’s future users or residents” (so-called ‘CEQA-in-Reverse’). Requiring analysis of the existing environment’s effects on a project, the Supreme Court emphasized, would “impermissibly expand the scope of CEQA.” The Supreme Court remanded the case to the First District Court of Appeal to apply its general ruling to the specific aspects of the BAAQMD Guidelines still in dispute. Continue Reading