The adjective "short" best describes California's land use and CEQA statutes of limitation, and Okasaki v. City of Elk Grove illustrates this principle perfectly. 

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.  

Having already prepared one environmental impact report that was set aside by a court, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea undertook a new EIR for the purposes of evaluating the impacts of the city disposing, by sale or lease, of a historic mansion. 

Having already prepared one environmental impact report that was set aside by a court, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea undertook a new EIR for the purposes of evaluating the impacts of the City disposing, by sale or lease, of a historic mansion. That EIR and the special circumstances surrounding publically owned historic structures were at issue in Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea.  

The best method for setting the proper baseline in a CEQA document still remains a matter of debate. For the project opponents, the payoff is often big if they can convince a court that the wrong baseline was used, as the ensuing analysis is all keyed to the baseline. If the wrong baseline is used, then the balance of the CEQA evaluations is upset. Citizens for East Shore Parks v. California State Lands Commission, the last CEQA decision for 2011, involves one of those baseline challenges. 

In the case of South Orange County Wastewater Authority v. City of Dana Point (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 1604 ("South Orange"), the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District was asked to order an environmental impact report (EIR) be prepared to assess the impact on the environment of a proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Court of Appeal declined to order such an EIR.

For a lot of planners, the idea of an "infill exemption" to the California Environmental Quality Act has been a kind of holy grail over the past few years. CEQA is a fact of life in California and unlikely to go away. But having to run though the entire CEQA process for a project a quarter-acre infill site – just as you might for a project on 5,000 acres of raw land – has been more than a little frustrating for developers and planners alike. Sure, an infill project has an impact. But if getting environmental clearance is a hassle, then what's the point?

How many mitigated negative declarations are required for a lead agency to avoid preparing an EIR? In Sonoma County the answer is five. While the portion of Schenck v. County of Sonoma devoted to the "fair argument" analysis remains unpublished, the court's published ruling that certain procedural errors are not prejudicial is helpful, as well as the appellate court's affirmation that the trial court can fashion a tailored remedy to cure a California Environmental Quality Act error and is not compelled to set aside the approval.

As the state's public disclosure statute, the California Environmental Quality Act directs lead agencies to disclose the likely impacts associated with agency approval of projects. And while legal caution dictates that more disclosure is preferable to less disclosure, lead agencies have to recognize that there are two notable exceptions to this practice: information relating to cultural resources, as outlined in Government Code section 6254, CEQA Guidelines section 15120(d), and trade secrets, per CEQA Guidelines section 15120(d).

In a feat of chronological gymnastics regarding a proposed development in the City of Napa, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held that a Notice of Determination posted over the course of 31 calendar days was not posted long enough to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act's requirement that it be posted for 30 days.