Articles Posted in CEQA

Published on:

by

Neill Brower
The Fourth District of the California Court of Appeal recently ruled that the California State University system could not use budgetary uncertainty as a basis for determining the feasibility of mitigation for off-campus impacts. In City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, 2011 DJDAR 17803, filed on December 13, the court upheld a broad-based challenge to the EIR for the San Diego State University Master Plan.

Among other things, the EIR claimed that the University could not feasibly mitigate project-related traffic impacts that would occur off-campus. Consistent with mitigation measures in the EIR, the resolution approving the project and certifying the EIR required the University to request from the State legislature the necessary funding for the University’s fair share of off-campus traffic- and transit-related improvements. The resolution also stated that because the University ultimately relied on funding from the State legislature, the University could not guarantee the allocation of sufficient funds or the timing of that allocation, nor could the University guarantee that the local agencies would fund the measures for which those agencies were responsible. Nevertheless, the resolution directed the Chancellor of the University to proceed with the project even if the legislature allocated insufficient funds for mitigation, finding that due to the various funding uncertainties, the off-campus traffic impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, but “are necessarily outweighed by the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by [the University].”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Neill Brower
A recent court decision upheld the use of multiple scenarios in a traffic analysis in an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for a redevelopment project. On November 22, 2011, the Sixth District of the California Court of Appeal certified for publication its decision in Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (“Pfeiffer“), Case No. H036310, which rejected, among other claims, a challenge to an EIR traffic analysis that used future baseline scenarios to evaluate impacts. The decision highlights and reinforces (1) the necessity of discussing existing conditions in addition to other scenarios that may provide more useful information regarding project impacts; and (2) the importance of substantiating a decision to deviate from existing conditions as the analytical baseline.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Sheri Bonstelle
JMBM’s land use attorneys partnered with the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, including its developer members, to draft amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code, Division 13, Sections 21000 et al) that will provide developers more certainty and protection from frivolous lawsuits that have threatened Hollywood development in a time of economic turmoil. Hollywood Chamber president, Leron Gubler, stated that thousands of construction and permanent jobs were lost in Hollywood, because CEQA lawsuits against eight key projects delayed the developments for one year to eighteen months. As a result, owners decided to put their projects on hold or abandon construction, because either the project lost financing backing or the onset of the recession eliminated the anticipated market. JMBM and the Hollywood Chamber met with State Senator Curren Price in January 2011 to discuss the serious implications of the lawsuits that threaten Hollywood’s growth, even when the developer ultimately prevails. Senator Price lauded these amendments as changes that would strengthen CEQA, and agreed to sponsor the bill in the 2011 Senate term.

CEQA is the foundation for environmental law in California, and its primary objective is to require disclosure of any significant environmental effects of proposed projects and mitigation of these effects to the extent feasible. CEQA also provides strict timelines and expedited litigation schedules for cases involving a challenge to such environmental reviews. However, the law allows for lenient extensions by judges, and the one-year time limit to proceed to hearing is often extended to over two years. In recent years the State legislature considered numerous amendments to CEQA to further expedite the litigation schedule and eliminate frivolous claims to allow more certainty for owners and developers in the process. However, the amendments did not ultimately provide a timely resolution of pending lawsuits. As a result, owners decided to put their projects on hold or abandon construction, because either the project lost financing backing or the onset of the recession eliminated the anticipated market.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Neill Brower
A recent court decision has already changed the way many public agencies evaluate traffic impacts in analysis reports prepared to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). On December 16, 2010, the Sixth District of the California Court of Appeal issued its decision in Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association v. City of Sunnyvale, invalidating an environmental impact report (EIR) for a major roadway extension project. Sunnyvale should be considered as a logical extension of case law regarding the proper baseline for CEQA analysis and the end of the future baseline scenario as the only basis of a traffic impact analysis.

Prior to Sunnyvale, an accepted practice for traffic impact analysis involved crafting a future baseline scenario, usually based on the anticipated year of project build-out, and evaluating project impacts based on the difference between future conditions with and without project-related traffic. This approach makes intuitive sense, as under very few circumstances would traffic levels and street configurations plus project traffic represent an accurate picture of the project’s ultimate effect on local and regional roadways. The Sunnyvale decision even recognized this.

However, CEQA Guidelines require an evaluation of the effects of a project on “the environment.” Generally, “the environment” means the physical conditions that exist in an area during publication of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) or, if no NOP is published, the time that environmental review began.
Continue reading