Development

Subscribe to Development via RSS

By James L. Arnone, Benjamin J. Hanelin, Lucas I. Quass, and Christopher Adam Martinez

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

In an unpublished opinion issued August 30, 2018, Stewards of Public Land v. City of Pasadena, et al., Case No. B277996, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a writ of mandate challenging two Notices of Exemption (NOE) issued by the City of Pasadena (City) for minor physical and programmatic changes to the operation of an archery range in a City park (the Project). The court held that the City properly relied upon the Category 1 Exemption for minor alteration to existing structures or facilities, and that neither the historical resources or unusual circumstances exception to the exemption applied.

Petitioner Stewards of Public Land (Stewards) argued that the City failed to comply with its historical preservation ordinance, failed to comply with state planning and land use laws, and wrongly determined the Project was categorically exempt from CEQA. Stewards also argued several municipal law claims, which the court found to be without merit. As to the Stewards’ CEQA claims, the court unanimously determined:

  • The general effects of the longstanding operation of an archery range on subsequently developed residences did not constitute unusual circumstances and that no exception to a CEQA exemption applied.

By Christopher H. Norton, Lucas I. Quass, and Derek Galey

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

In an unpublished opinion issued July 10, 2018, Sierra Club v. County of Kern, Case No. F071133, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded for the issuance of a new writ of mandate directing the County of Kern (County) to address the improper deferral of mitigation measures for air quality impacts in the Kern River Valley Specific Plan’s (Specific Plan) Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In summary, the court determined:

  • The EIR’s analysis of the long-term significance of the Specific Plan’s greenhouse gas emissions was adequate at its time of release in 2011.
  • The EIR’s approach to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions was not a prejudicial abuse of discretion.
  • CEQA does not require greater than a 1:1 mitigation ratio for the amount of farmland to be placed under an agricultural conservation easement or similar program.
  • County violated CEQA by deferring the formulation of air quality mitigation measures without firmly committing to specific performance standards.

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

By Christopher W. Garrett, Daniel P. Brunton, Lauren Glaser, Natalie C. Rogers, and Jennifer K. Roy

In a partially published opinion issued April 4, 2018, Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No. CPF14513453, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that state law preempted the City and County of San Francisco’s (City and County) ordinance provision prohibiting changes to nonconforming residential units for up to 10 years if the units’ tenants were evicted pursuant to the Ellis Act. In summary, the court determined:

  • Petitioner waived its Planning Code and CEQA claims for failure to exhaust its administrative remedies.
  • The Ellis Act preempted the City and County’s 10-year waiting period for alterations to non-conforming units if the owner had evicted a non-fault tenant.

The petitioner, a local property owners’ organization (Petitioner), petitioned for writ of mandate seeking to invalidate the City and County’s ordinance that limited the ability of owners of nonconforming housing units to alter those units if a non-fault eviction had occurred within the prior 10 years (the Ordinance). Petitioner argued:

  • The adoption of the Ordinance violated the Planning Code because the Board of Supervisors (Board) amended the Ordinance prior to adoption and those changes were not reviewed by the Planning Commission (Commission)
  • The City and County’s determination that the Ordinance was not a “project” subject to environmental review violated CEQA
  • The Ellis Act preempted the Ordinance

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

By Christopher W. Garrett, Daniel P. Brunton, Natalie C. Rogers, and Roopika Subramanian

In a published opinion issued February 28, 2018, Covina Residents for Responsible Development v. City of Covina, Case No. B279590, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment and upheld the City of Covina’s (the City) approval of a 68-unit mixed-use infill project (Project). In summary, the court determined:

  • An EIR must address secondary parking impacts caused by traffic congestion, but parking impacts, in and of themselves, are exempt from CEQA review.
  • An agency is permitted to tier from a specific plan EIR if (1) the proposed action falls under an exemption, or (2) potential project impacts have been adequately analyzed and mitigated in the specific plan EIR.
  • In determining whether to approve a tentative map for a project, local agencies must make findings showing the proposed map’s compatibility with objectives, policies, and programs in the specific plan, but need not show perfect conformity.