On April 20, 2021, the First District Court of Appeal filed its first published opinion interpreting California Senate Bill 35’s streamlining provisions in Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley. The Court held that the City of Berkeley erred in finding a mixed-use development project ineligible for SB 35 streamlining. Because the project met the essential qualifications under SB 35, the First District commanded the trial court to issue a writ of mandate directing the City to approve the project without further environmental review. This marks the first published decision to enforce the State’s new affordable housing laws and is a harbinger of battles to come.
In 2015, the developer submitted an application for a mixed-use development on a surface parking lot that is part of a three-block area the Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission designated as a City of Berkeley Landmark in 2000, as the location of the West Berkeley Shellmound. After several years of legal wrangling with the City and stakeholders over that proposal, and following the passage of SB 35, the developer submitted a new application, proposing a mixed-use project comprised of 260 dwelling units—50 percent of which were designated as “affordable to low-income households”—above approximately 27,500 square feet of retail space and parking. Continue Reading
In an opinion filed on February 1, 2021, the First Appellate District in 
On December 11, 2019, the California Supreme Court granted review of the Third District’s decision in County of Butte v. Department of Water Resources, dismissing a CEQA challenge to DWR’s relicensing application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Oroville Dam on the basis that the claim was preempted by federal law. The Court of Appeal held the Federal Power Act (FPA) exclusively occupies the field of dam licensing and preempts state regulation, and accordingly found that it had no jurisdiction to consider the case. 
On February 18, 2021, the First Appellate District issued an opinion in Sweeney et al. v. California Regional Water Quality Control Bd., San Francisco Bay Region et al. (Case No. A153583) (“Sweeney”). The opinion is much anticipated given its relevance to the continued validity of the State Water Resources Control Board’s recently adopted State Procedures for Discharges of Dredged and Fill Material (“Procedures”). The Appellate Court reversed the lower court in the entirety, substantially deferring to the actions and prosecutorial discretion of the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Regional Water Board”, collectively, “Water Boards”) based on application of a revised standard of review. Importantly, according to the court, the appropriate interpretation of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act’s (“Porter-Cologne Act”) definition of waste provides the Water Boards adequate authority to regulate discharges of dredge and fill material, bolstering the Water Boards’ efforts to continue with implementation and enforcement of the Procedures, which were recently called into question and narrowed by the trial court order issued in San Joaquin Tributaries Authority v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (Case No. 34-2019-80003133) (“SJTA”). A full analysis of that order is available 
On his first day in office on January 20, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order titled, “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis” (the Order). The Order directed federal agencies to immediately begin a review of federal regulations and regulatory action over the last four years. The Order directed agency heads to consider revision, rescission, or suspension of regulations rather than directing any particular course of action. However, the Order illuminates the Biden Administration’s priorities with respect to the regulatory landscape for energy and the environment. 
On December 17, 2020, the Sacramento County Superior Court substantially limited the scope of waters to which the State Procedures for Discharges of Dredged and Fill Material (“Procedures”) apply through its decision in San Joaquin Tributaries Authority v. State Water Resources Control Board (Case No. 34-2019-80003133). According to the Court, the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) exceeded its policy-making and water quality control plan development authority, resulting in the restriction of the Procedures to those waters regulated under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and State “ocean waters.” The Court’s decision significantly narrows the delta between the discharges of dredged and fill material regulated exclusively under the Procedures, and those that will now be regulated under both federal and state water quality control laws. However, because the Court’s opinion did not invalidate the Procedures in their entirety, permittees will still need to evaluate application of the Procedures, though to a constricted set of waters and aquatic features. 
In an opinion filed on December 29, 2020, the First Appellate District in 
In an opinion published on August 17, 2020, the Third Appellate District in 
On August 27, 2020, in 