California Supreme Court Rejects Mandatory “Reverse CEQA” Analysis

By Heather S. Riley : allenmatkins – excerpt

The California Supreme Court issued its long awaited opinion yesterday in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (CBIA v. BAAQMD), commonly referred to as the “Reverse CEQA” case. Read the full decision.

The Supreme Court’s opinion upholds four published CEQA decisions and rejects the so-called “reverse CEQA” argument, which would require an analysis of the “impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents” for every proposed development project in California. The Court held – based on the plain language of CEQA – that a lead agency must analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project only for certain airport, school, and housing construction projects and when a proposed project “risks exacerbating” existing “environmental hazards or conditions.”

Opponents of development have often advanced the reverse CEQA argument as a back-up claim in case their substantive claims fail. The Supreme Court not only took on the issue, thereby limiting the circumstances under which the opposition can make such a claim, but the Court also disputed the “reverse CEQA” nomenclature as “misleading and inapt.”

The Supreme Court’s decision is good news for the development community. However, there have been recent efforts to enact legislation that would statutorily recognize the reverse CEQA argument. It would not be surprising if the CBIA v. BAAQMD decision sparks renewed efforts on that front in Sacramento…(more)

California Supreme Court Rejects Mandatory “Reverse CEQA” Analysis Supreme Court Reaffirms Scope of CEQA Analysis in California Building Industry Association (CBIA) v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)

Mission Bay Alliance urges UCSF to dissolve Warriors arena agreement

By : sfexaminer – excerpt

The Mission Bay Alliance group that opposes building a Warriors arena in Mission Bay is threatening to take legal action if UC San Francisco does not dissolve an agreement that opponents claim strips UCSF of the ability to seek remedies for any damage caused by the arena.

Lawyers of the alliance sent a letter Thursday to UCSF Chancellor Sam Hawgood, warning that the memorandum of understanding between the university and the Warriors that was executed Oct. 7, a day before the Warriors finalized their purchase of the 11-acre property at Third and 16th streets from, eliminates many of UCSF’s rights related to the arena.

That means if there are traffic issues, like the overlap of a Warriors game with a nurses’ shift change at UCSF in the evening, for example, the university is legally unable to take the issue to court, said Josh Schiller of the law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP that represents the alliance.

“This is something the university has done that we think violates the public’s interest and the taxpayers’ interest,” Schiller said.

The alliance has also appealed the final environmental impact report for the arena, which is scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday… (more)

%d bloggers like this: