California

Subscribe to California via RSS

CEQA Case Report: Understanding the Judicial Landscape for Development[i]

By Christopher W. Garrett, Daniel P. Brunton, Diego Enrique Flores, and Samantha K. Seikkula

In an unpublished opinion issued May 18, 2018, Responsible Development for Water Tank Hill v. County of San Mateo, Case No. A150883, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying Responsible Development for Water Tank Hill’s (Petitioner’s) petition for writ of mandate, finding that the County of San Mateo (County) had properly analyzed the potential environmental impacts of San Mateo Real Estate, Inc.’s (Developers’) proposed housing development (Project) and that the County’s determinations were supported by the substantial evidence. In summary, the court determined:

  • An EIR’s analysis of noise impact should be site-specific and should consider qualitative factors as well as technical factors
  • When an EIR finds, based on substantial evidence, that an impact would be less-than-significant, further mitigation is not required.
  • An agency may rely on statewide emissions-reduction goals when determining mitigation measures to reduce a project’s significant GHG impacts.

Background for Appeal

After several rounds of public comment, the San Mateo County Planning Commission (Commission) approved the Project. The County Board of Supervisors denied an appeal of the approval and upheld the Commission’s decision. Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to set aside the Project approvals as inadequate under CEQA. Petitioner argued that the approvals were inadequate because:

  • The environmental impact report (EIR) failed to adequately analyze impacts
  • The County failed to adopt feasible mitigation measures
  • The County’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence
  • The County failed to recirculate the final EIR after making changes that constituted significant new information

The trial court rejected Petitioner’s specific challenges to the County’s environmental analysis of air quality, aesthetics, hydrology, and noise, finding that the County had properly analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project and that the County’s determinations were supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner appealed the decision with respect to air quality and noise.

CEQA Case Report: Understanding the Judicial Landscape for Development[i]

By Christopher W. Garrett, Daniel P. Brunton, James A. Erselius, John D. Niemeyer, and Samantha K. Seikkula

In an unpublished opinion issued February 20, 2018, Advocates for Better Cmty. Dev. v. City of Palm Springs, Case No. E066193, the California Court of Appeal dismissed as moot an appeal from the trial court’s judgment and upheld the City of Palm Springs’ (City’s) decision to approve changes to a planned development in downtown Palm Springs. In summary, the court determined:

  • On appeal, a CEQA challenge is moot where, due to events that occur while the appeal is pending, the court is no longer able to grant effective relief

Advocates for Better Community Development (Petitioner), had filed an unsuccessful petition for writ of mandate seeking to invalidate the City’s addendum to an environmental impact report (EIR) for the changes to the planned development. Petitioner argued that that the City’s approval was inconsistent with the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and that the approval violated CEQA because the changes were substantial and required additional environmental review. The court held that these issues were moot due to an ordinance that the City passed modifying the Specific Plan before Petitioner filed its notice of appeal.

The California Assembly is expected to vote this summer to establish increased renewable energy targets and set a target of 100% clean energy by 2045.

By Marc T. Campopiano, Jennifer K. Roy, Diego Enrique Flores

SB 100, Senator Kevin De Leon’s renewable energy bill, would increase California’s already ambitious renewable energy standards by 2030 with an ultimate goal of 100% clean energy by 2045. On July 3, the California Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy passed the bill out of committee. In 2017, the bill was approved in the Senate but did not progress through the Assembly before the term ended. In 2018, SB 100 is expected to again reach the Assembly floor for consideration.

As currently drafted, SB 100 would increase California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirement from 50% to 60% by 2030, and set a goal of 100% clean energy by December 31, 2045 through RPS-eligible and zero-carbon resources. Clean energy could be defined more broadly than the current definition of renewable energy, to include energy resources such as large-scale hydro power that qualify as zero-carbon.

The California Assembly is expected to vote this summer to establish increased renewable energy targets and set a target of 100% clean energy by 2045.

By Marc T. Campopiano, Jennifer K. Roy, Diego Enrique Flores

SB 100, Senator Kevin De Leon’s renewable energy bill, would increase California’s already ambitious renewable energy standards by 2030 with an ultimate goal of 100% clean energy by 2045. On July 3, the California Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy passed the bill out of committee. In 2017, the bill was approved in the Senate but did not progress through the Assembly before the term ended. In 2018, SB 100 is expected to again reach the Assembly floor for consideration.

As currently drafted, SB 100 would increase California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirement from 50% to 60% by 2030, and set a goal of 100% clean energy by December 31, 2045 through RPS-eligible and zero-carbon resources. Clean energy could be defined more broadly than the current definition of renewable energy, to include energy resources such as large-scale hydro power that qualify as zero-carbon.

Upcoming regulation will require online and catalog retailers to implement product warnings.

By: Michael G. Romey and Lucas I. Quass

Enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition 65 (Prop 65), will change significantly on August 30, 2018. Two years earlier, on August 30, 2016, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the agency responsible for implementing Prop 65, issued regulations that increased businesses’ responsibility to provide a “clear and reasonable” warning to consumers for products that contain carcinogens and/or reproductive toxicants. Among other requirements, under these new regulations (2016 Regulations) businesses must provide consumers in California with more specific information about potentially harmful chemicals in their consumer products. The 2016 Regulations also specify which entities in the stream of commerce are responsible for providing the Prop 65 warnings and the information that goes into the warnings.

Specifically, the 2016 Regulations will impact online retailers and upstream entities such as product manufacturers, suppliers, and distributers, who under the 2016 Regulations are primarily responsible for Prop 65 warning labels. See CAL. CODE. REGS. tit. 27, § 25600.2(a) (2016).

This blog post is the first in a series to consider several issues as the 2016 Regulations become effective on August 30, 2018. These regulations are only applicable to products manufactured on or after August 30, 2018. If you have further questions about the implementation of the 2016 Regulations, please contact one of the authors or the Latham lawyer with whom you usually consult.

By Daniel P. Brunton, Lucas I. Quass, and Stephanie L. Postal

CEQA Case Report: Understanding the Judicial Landscape for Development [i]

In a published opinion issued March 15, 2018, Don’t Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment and upheld the City of San Diego’s (the City’s) determination that a wireless communications facility (the Project) qualified for a categorical exemption for new small facilities under CEQA. In summary, the court determined:

  • Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required if the agency did not hold a public hearing or otherwise provide an opportunity for members of the public to raise objections.
  • A standalone utility can qualify under the Class 3 exemption.
  • For the location exception to CEQA exemptions to apply, a location impacted by a project must be designated as an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern by an agency.

The petitioner, a non-profit entity (Petitioner), had filed an unsuccessful petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn the approval of development and use permits for the Project. Petitioner argued that the City’s determination that the Project was exempt from environmental review under the Class 3 exemption was erroneous because, as a standalone utility, the Project would not qualify for a Class 3 exemption. Petitioner also argued that, even if the Project fell within the Class 3 exemption, an environmental impact report (EIR) would be required because the unusual circumstances exception and location exception applied . The court rejected each of these arguments.

By Daniel P. Brunton, Lucas I. Quass, and Stephanie L. Postal

CEQA Case Report: Understanding the Judicial Landscape for Development [i]

In a published opinion issued March 15, 2018, Don’t Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment and upheld the City of San Diego’s (the City’s) determination that a wireless communications facility (the Project) qualified for a categorical exemption for new small facilities under CEQA. In summary, the court determined:

  • Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required if the agency did not hold a public hearing or otherwise provide an opportunity for members of the public to raise objections.
  • A standalone utility can qualify under the Class 3 exemption.
  • For the location exception to CEQA exemptions to apply, a location impacted by a project must be designated as an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern by an agency.

The petitioner, a non-profit entity (Petitioner), had filed an unsuccessful petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn the approval of development and use permits for the Project. Petitioner argued that the City’s determination that the Project was exempt from environmental review under the Class 3 exemption was erroneous because, as a standalone utility, the Project would not qualify for a Class 3 exemption. Petitioner also argued that, even if the Project fell within the Class 3 exemption, an environmental impact report (EIR) would be required because the unusual circumstances exception and location exception applied . The court rejected each of these arguments.

By James Arnone, Lucinda Starrett, Marc Campopiano, and Christopher Garrett

California higher courts rule in favor of public agencies on small majority of environmental impact report cases.

Over the course of 2017, Latham lawyers reviewed all 46 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) cases, both published and unpublished, that came before California appellate courts. These cases covered a wide variety of CEQA documents and other topics. Below is a compilation of information from the review and a discussion…

By James Arnone, Lucinda Starrett, Marc Campopiano, and Christopher Garrett

California higher courts rule in favor of public agencies on small majority of environmental impact report cases.

Over the course of 2017, Latham lawyers reviewed all 46 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) cases, both published and unpublished, that came before California appellate courts. These cases covered a wide variety of CEQA documents and other topics. Below is a compilation of information from the review and a discussion…

By Christopher W. Garrett, Natalie C. Rogers, and Kimberly D. Farbota

CEQA Case Report: Understanding the Judicial Landscape for Development[1]

In a published opinion issued January 12, 2018, Heron Bay Homeowners Assn. v. City of San Leandro, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s partial grant of Heron Bay Homeowners Association’s request for attorneys’ fees following its successful CEQA suit against the City of San Leandro (the City). In summary, the court determined:

  • The financial burden of enforcement the homeowners association faced made an award appropriate under California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 1021.5.
  • A successful CEQA litigant is not disqualified from an award of attorneys’ fees if the financial benefit at stake in the litigation was uncertain compared to a substantial financial burden.

The petitioner, the homeowners association, had filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to invalidate the City’s approval of Halus Power Systems’ (Halus’) proposed project to install a single 100-foot-tall wind turbine on Halus’ property for renewable power generation and on-site research and development (the Project). The petitioner also sought to compel the City to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) instead of the mitigated negative declaration (MND) the City had initially prepared. The petitioner argued the Project as mitigated would have significant environmental impacts on views, birds and their habitats, aircraft navigational radar, noise and vibration levels, and property values. The trial court found substantial evidence supported a fair argument that the Project as mitigated would have significant environmental impacts and directed the City to set aside its approvals until the City prepared and approved an EIR. Halus ultimately decided not to proceed with the Project.