Organizers have confirmed that attorney Jennifer Hernandez of Holland & Knight and Prof. Ethan Elkind of UCLA will both take part in a panel discussion of SB 375 and SB 743 at the University of San Francisco law school November 4. A third panelist will be Michael Schwartz of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority.

Hernandez and Elkind set out strongly worded, antagonistic positions in August on the proposal by California's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to implement SB 743 by shifting from the existing Level of Service (LOS) transportation impact metric under CEQA to a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric. The proposal has been championed by advocates for public transportation, bike/pedestrian access and "smart growth" but dreaded by some developers as a source of new uncertainties and obligations under CEQA law. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3560 and http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3582.)

Hernandez was the principal author of a fierce criticism published by her firm in August, captioned, "OPR Proposes to Increase CEQA's Costs, Complexity and Litigation Risks with SB 743 Implementation."

Elkind answered it with a critical essay captioned "Misleading Attacks on California's new Transportation Analysis Under CEQA."

A further OPR presentation was scheduled for November 3, so by November 4 the panelists may have further grist for their discussion. See http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/SB743_Workshop_Notice.pdf. The presentation's webcast may be available later, as with OPR's previous presentation of the type, at http://opr.ca.gov/s_sb743.php.

An RSVP form for the USF event is here.

Oral argument in Berkeley Hillside set for December 2

The Supreme Court has announced it will hear oral arguments in Los Angeles December 2 in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (Logan). The case is one of the most significant in a large backlog of CEQA cases currently pending before the State Supreme Court. It concerns the application of a categorical CEQA infill exemption to a proposal for a very large private house, and more generally whether or when "unusual circumstances" can create exceptions to the exemption.

[This paragraph has been corrected:] A header in the respondents' brief argues: "Appellants have not shown that 'unusual circumstances' should be deleted from the Unusual Circumstances exception." And they argue that the exception is at risk of swallowing the rule. (And see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3314.) The petitioners, Berkeley Hillside Preservation, say they haven't sought to delete the 'unusual circumstances' language. They do argue that a fair argument for significant environmental impacts should still trigger an EIR.

The full current list of pending major CEQA cases before the Supreme Court is as follows:
- Berkeley Hillside, S201116, oral argument December 2
- Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. 14th District Agricultural Association (Stars of Justice), S218240, held awaiting the decision in Berkeley Hillside.
- Center for Biological Diversity v Dept of Fish and Wildlife (the Newhall Ranch case), S217763, reply brief due November 26.
- California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, S213478
(the "CEQA In Reverse" case): Fully briefed.
- City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of CSU, S199557, fully briefed.
- Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District, S214061, fully briefed.
- Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, S219783, opening brief due December 2.

In other news --

-  The Calfornia Attorney General issued an opinion clarifying that members of oversight boards for local post-redevelopment successor agencies may not receive compensation or reimbursed expenses from the authority that appoints them. The rule applies to appointing authorities for other oversight boards as well. Amit Palta, of the firm of Best Best & Krieger, LLP, wrote up the opinion on JDSupra. The opinion is at http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/12-902.pdf.
- The State Supreme Court turned down a request for depublication of a major case affirming the EIR for a portion of the California High-Speed Rail project. For coverage of the Third District appellate ruling see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3540.
- The Los Angeles County Supervisors approved a new "vision statement" for Marina Del Rey.
- The city of Tulare adopted a general plan that shrank its Urban Development Boundary by six miles.
- The LA Times reported on tensions over the possibility of broader federal tribal recognition policies that could lead to more tribal exercises of sovereignty in places with strictly regulated land use such as Napa.
- In what the LA Times called "a new front in the battle over Malibu beach access," Coastal Commission staff sent enforcement warnings over allegations of harassment and high fees for public beach access at the privately run Paradise Cove.