California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Subscribe to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) via RSS

In its decision in Upland Community First v. City of Upland, the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the development of a warehouse and parcel delivery service building against a challenge primarily to its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions thresholds. In doing so, the Court provided a rare victory for a challenged MND while reaffirming local agency discretion in selecting appropriate quantitative thresholds of significance for GHG emissions under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).Continue Reading A New Hope for the Future of Mitigated Negative Declarations: The Logistics of Warehouse Storage Greenhouse Gas Analysis

In Westside Los Angeles Neighbors Network v. City of Los Angeles, the Second District Court of Appeals considered and upheld the City of Los Angeles’s (“City”) actions associated with the approval of the Westside Mobility Plan. Specifically, the court upheld: (i) the Los Angeles City Planning Commission’s (“CPC”) certification of the Westside Mobility Plan Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”); (ii) the determination that the Streetscape Plan was categorically exempt from CEQA; (iii) the finding that Westside Los Angeles Neighbors Network (“Network”) failed to show that the EIR was deficient in its analysis of growth inducing impacts or the imposition of certain traffic-related mitigation measures.Continue Reading Westside Mobility Plan Clears the Road of CEQA Challenges

In its recent decision in Hilltop Group Inc. v. County of San Diego, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a number of holdings that resulted in a strong ruling in support of streamlined environmental review for projects that are consistent with and within the scope of a program environmental impact report (EIR) for a general plan. The Court clarified that CEQA Guidelines section 15183 (“Section 15183”) does not permit additional environmental review for such projects except as necessary to determine whether a project will have significant effects that are peculiar to the project or the site that were not analyzed in the prior EIR and cannot be substantially mitigated by uniformly applied development policies or standards. The Court went on to hold that public controversy and lay testimony about “peculiar” impacts that might arise from a project do not constitute substantial evidence sufficient to require further environmental review under Section 15183. Perhaps the most important lesson of Hilltop Group Inc. is that decisionmakers cannot err on the side of requiring environmental review simply because a project is controversial, particularly when streamlining is in play. If substantial evidence demonstrates a project’s environmental effects were studied in the prior general plan EIR or can be addressed through uniform policies and procedures, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not permit the lead agency to require an EIR, mitigated negative declaration or other additional environmental review.Continue Reading A Win for Consistency Evaluations Under CEQA Guidelines 15183: Court Rules that Public Controversy is not a Basis for Additional Environmental Review

Despite repeated attempts at reform by the Legislature, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) continues to be a minefield for those assigned with the herculean task of complying with the law’s myriad of directives. Add to the already inherent complexity of CEQA, judicial interpretation of its provisions has wide-reaching implications that can create even more potential pitfalls for those required to abide by its mandates, including decisionmakers and project proponents. Below are the summaries of the most notable CEQA cases from 2023, broken down by category.Continue Reading 2023 Year-in-Review CEQA Litigation

Following California Supreme Court and its own case law precedent, the Second District, Division Five, has ruled in Guerrero et al. v. City of Los Angeles (Jan. 17, 2024) (Guerrero), certified for publication, that a CEQA challenge to approval of a vesting tentative subdivision map conditioned on subsequent discretionary rezoning was untimely when not filed until after the rezoning was finally approved.Continue Reading Conditional Approval is Project Approval: Appellate Court Confirms CEQA Statute of Limitations Triggered by Tentative Map Approval Conditioned on Subsequent Rezoning

The 2023 legislative cycle saw another mixed-bag of legislation dealing with CEQA “reform,” with a particular focus on streamlining affordable housing development.[1] While many bills died during the process, a few key laws were passed or extended over the past year. A brief recap of those bills and their impact on CEQA is provided below.[2] Continue Reading CEQA 2023 Legislative Update

In it’s recent decision in United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2023) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment voiding the City of Los Angeles’s reliance on the CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption for a hotel project in Hollywood that would demolish 40 rent-stabilized units (RSO). In upholding the trial court decision, the appellate court emphasized the City’s failure to adequately assess the Project’s consistency with all applicable general plan policies, as required by CEQA Guidelines section 15332(a).Continue Reading Second District Addresses CEQA’s Class 32 Infill Exemption Criteria

In late June, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld a Superior Court decision in Save Our Access v. City of San Diego, providing clarity for determining when a “later activity” is beyond the scope of an existing Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, the Court held that a proposed ballot measure initiated by the City of San Diego to exclude the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Plan area from a voter-enacted height limit did not qualify as a “later activity” within the scope of the existing PEIR for the Community Plan Update because the PEIR relied on the height limit in its analysis of the potential environmental impacts. The Court held that the proper remedy is for the City to conduct further analysis of the potential impact of taller buildings in the Community Plan area in order to comply with CEQA before proceeding with the ballot measure.Continue Reading California Court Holds Proposed Ballot Measure Excluding Community Plan Area from Height Limit Is Not a “Later Activity” For Purposes of a Within-the-Scope Analysis

On July 6, 2023, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass signed into law a provision to exempt certain affordable housing projects from the city’s Site Plan Review Process. The exemption was made as an amendment to Site Plan Review Ordinance, codifying part of Mayor Bass’ Executive Directive 1, which intends to address the city’s homelessness crisis by accelerating the pace and lowering the cost of building affordable housing.Continue Reading Los Angeles Mayor Signs New Legislation Exempting Affordable Housing Projects from Site Plan Review

On July 10, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a package of bills intended to accelerate critical infrastructure projects across the State aimed at achieving monumental climate and clean energy goals while also creating up to 400,000 jobs. With the goal of “building more, faster,” this infrastructure streamlining package will take effect immediately, and includes portions of Newsom’s previously proposed infrastructure package reforming the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)[1].Continue Reading Build More, Faster? Newsom Signs Infrastructure and Budget Legislation 

On June 13, 2023, the Second Appellate District affirmed the City of Pomona’s use of a statutory exemption for its Commercial Cannabis Overlay Permit Program under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15183, finding that the program required no additional environmental review. The decision in Lucas v. City of Pomona is noteworthy for the appellate court’s broad interpretation of the statutory exemption,[1] holding that (i) the City’s zoning ordinance, General Plan Update, and environmental impact report (EIR) that do not address “density” may be exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, and (ii) uses, including cannabis-related uses, that are not literally included in land use plan documents, may be determined to be sufficiently similar to existing and defined land uses allowed by underlying zoning.Continue Reading Commercial Cannabis Permit Program and Overlay District Statutorily Exempt Under CEQA Guideline Section 15183