On remand from the California Supreme Court, the First District Court of Appeal again considered the case of Tomlinson v. County of Alameda (Case No. A125471) in light of the Supreme Court’s holding (54 Cal.4th 281) that the exhaustion of administrative remedies provision as set forth in Public Resources Code section 21177, subdivision (e), applies
Exemptions
Appellate Court Holds Association’s CEQA Claims Regarding Klamath River Compromise Agreements are Time-Barred
In Siskiyou County Water Users Association v. Natural Resources Agency (2012) 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7073, the Siskiyou County Water Users Association (Association) challenged a pair of compromise agreements made between stakeholders regarding the potential removal of hydroelectric dams to help restore fisheries on the Klamath River (Agreements), alleging the Agreements constituted a “project”…
Appellate Court Finds No Issue with the Timing of San Francisco’s Permit Issuance for T-Mobile’s Project
In Wendy Robinson v. City and County of San Francisco (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 950, the First District Court of Appeal upheld the City’s approval of T-Mobile’s installation of wireless telecommunication equipment on existing utility poles throughout San Francisco as proper under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The issue raised by appellants (a group of…
Third District Court of Appeal Holds “Fair Argument” Standard of Review Applies to Determine Whether there is a Reasonable Possibility of Significant Effect to Trigger the Unusual Circumstances Exception to a CEQA Categorical Exemption
In a showing of solidarity with the First District Court of Appeal in its recent ruling in the Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 656 case (currently pending review by the Supreme Court), the Third District Court of Appeal slapped the hand of the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) for increasing…
Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Peace: Petitioners Must Exhaust Their Administrative Remedies Prior to Challenging an Agency’s Decision That a Project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA
In Tomlinson v. County of Alameda (Case No. S188161), the Supreme Court of California held that the exhaustion of administrative remedies provision as set forth in Public Resources Code section 21177, subdivision (e), applies to a public agency’s decision that a project is categorically exempt from CEQA. The Court’s eleven page decision put to rest…
Del Cerro Mobile Estates v. City of Placentia (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 173
Petitioner challenged the City of Placentia’s (City) EIR for a proposed railroad grade separation project, claiming that the EIR was not sufficient. The trial court dismissed the case. The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal. The Petitioner argued that because the City did not claim the project was exempt from CEQA and prepared…
Applying the Fair Argument Test, Court holds that Construction of a Large Single-Family Home was Not Exempt from CEQA Because the Unusual Circumstances Exception Applied
In Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2012) 203 Cal. App. 4th 656, the Berkeley Zoning Adjustment Board (Board) determined that a new roughly 10,000 square foot home in the Berkeley hills was categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to (1) the Infill Development Exemption and (2) the New Construction / Conversion of a Small…
Agencies Can Make Adjustments to Environmental Baseline Early in the Review Process
In Citizens for East Shore Parks v. California State Lands Commission (Dec. 30, 2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 549, a citizen group challenged the California State Lands Commission’s (Commission) approval of a lease renewal for Chevron’s marine terminal in the San Francisco Bay near its refinery in Richmond, California. At the onset of the review process, the…