Environmental Law
Envt'l Law News VOLUME 33, NUMBER 1, SPRING/SUMMER 2024
Content
- Book Review: Citizen Justice: the Environmental Legacy of William O. Douglas - Public Advocate and Conservation Champion By Hon. M. Margaret McKeown
- Editor's Note
- Inside This Issue
- Promoting Land Stewardship: Engaging the Farming Community In Project Planning
- Protect the Right To Migrate and Settle As a Fundamental Liberty To Help Solve the Housing Crisis
- SECTION OFFICERS & EDITORIAL BOARD
- The Els Environmental Negotiations Competition For Law Students-a Meaningful Annual Tradition
- Tribal Beneficial Use Designations As a Catalyst For Reallocating Water In California
- Why California's Courts Should Revisit the Ceqa Unusual Circumstances Exception
WHY CALIFORNIA’S COURTS SHOULD REVISIT THE CEQA UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXCEPTION
Written by Patrick M. Huber1
INTRODUCTION
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), public agencies must conduct environmental review of projects that may have a significant effect on the environment.2 As directed in statute, the Secretary of Natural Resources (Secretary) has identified classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment.3 These classes of projects are "exempt" from CEQA’s environmental review requirements. However, there are exceptions to the exemptions.4 The subject of this article is the "unusual circumstances exception" (exception).5
In 2015, the California Supreme Court overhauled the exception jurisprudence in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (Berkeley Hillside).6 The Court’s decision preceded a surge in the usage of categorical exemptions, which continues to rise.7 As public agencies apply categorical exemptions more often, challengers will more frequently try to require agencies to conduct environmental review. Consequently, petitioners will increasingly test Berkeley Hillside’s rules and guidance.