After recently clearing its docket of California Environmental Quality Act cases, the state Supreme Court has accepted a new CEQA case for review.
All seven high court justices voted to review the Second District Court of Appeal's decision in Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach. In January, the appellate panel ruled 2-1 that Manhattan Beach should have completed an environmental impact report before adopting an ordinance banning the distribution of plastic shopping bags within the city limits (see CP&DR Legal Digest, February 1, 2010). The court ruled that an association of plastic bag manufacturers had legal standing to bring the lawsuit, and that the association presented substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the ordinance would have environmental impacts.
The city argues that the coalition brought the suit purely to protect its commercial interests, which is not permissible under CEQA. The city also argues there is no substantial evidence the ban could harm the environment.
The state Supreme Court accepted two questions for consideration: Did the association of plastic bag manufacturers have standing to challenge a local ordinance banning the use of plastic bags? Did the trial court err in ruling the ordinance invalid for the failure to prepare an environmental impact report?
The Supreme Court's acceptance of the case means the Second District's opinion no longer stands.
The case is Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach, No. 180720.
The premise behind the categorical exemptions in the California Environmental Quality Act for infill and single-family projects is that projects in relatively dense, established urban areas are unlikely to create major impacts. According to a recent decision, this premise has its limits.
The California Supreme Court will review a case in which Alameda County and a housing developer argue that a California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit filed by project opponents should have been dismissed because the opponents did not raise their objection during the administrative process.
An environmental impact report for a 560-housing unit specific plan in the Riverside County city of Beaumont has been upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The court approved the city's use of a baseline for examining water usage that was favorable to the developer, accepted the city's determination that loss of farmland could not be mitigated, and upheld the city's statement of overriding consideration for approving a project with significant environmental impacts.
Divine purposes do not give developers a free pass to circumvent local zoning regulations.
The Second District Court of Appeal has ruled that Los Angeles County was entitled to a court order that prohibited a church from operating a school without a required conditional user permit.
The Sahag-Mesrob Armenian Church owns two parcels zoned R-1 (single-family residential) in the San Gabriel Valley. In May 2008, the church filed an application for a conditional use permit to operate an 800-student, K-12 school on the property. Four months later, the county received complaints that the school was operating in advance of the issuance of the conditional use permit and without California Environmental Quality Act review.
The environmental impact report for a proposed human waste composting facility in San Bernardino County has been rejected by the Fourth District Court of Appeal for failure to examine an alternative facility that would be enclosed rather than open-air, as proposed. In addition, the court ruled the county should have completed a water supply assessment for the project.
In the first-ever appellate court decision regarding the California Environmental Quality Act and climate change, the First District Court of Appeal has held that the future development of a plan for greenhouse gas mitigation constituted improperly deferred mitigation. For that reason and others, the court ruled the environmental impact report for an oil refinery project was invalid.
The California Supreme Court has ruled that a project's air impacts are to be measured against existing ambient conditions, not against a permitted level of operations for the emitter.
To the relief of many public agencies, the state Supreme Court has overturned an appellate court decision that could have increased the number of "projects" subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
In a 7-0 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that Sacramento County was not required to complete an environmental review before denying a conditional use permit renewal for a private airport. Project denials are specifically exempted from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the court ruled.
The environmental impact report for a water transfer from a Kern County irrigation district to an urban water supplier in the Santa Clarita Valley has been upheld by the Second District Court of Appeal.
The unanimous three-judge panel overturned a trial court judge,who had struck down the EIR because it did not adequately address a State Water Project framework and ongoing environmental review. The Second District ruled that the EIR did address the State Water Project issues and said the water transfer is a separate matter anyway.
Two separate California Environmental Quality Act lawsuits over unrelated measures that raised revenue for transportation purposes have been thrown out by the state Court of Appeal. One case involved a half-cent sales tax in Santa Barbara County. The other concerned a Los Angeles bus fare increase.
A city may determine that a project has no significant effects on energy consumption if it exceeds the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. The ruling appears to be the first on an environmental impact report's analysis of how a project might affect energy use, an area of the California Environmental Quality Act receiving increased attention because of concerns about climate change.
In a case regarding a proposed "town center" project in Rancho Cordova, the Third District Court of Appeal has overturned nearly every portion of a Superior Court ruling in favor of environmentalists who oppose the development.
