On August 28, 2019, the California Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) approved the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Materials to Waters of the State (“Procedures”). Consequently, the Procedures will become effective on May 28, 2020 — nine (9) months after OAL approval, based on the implementation date set forth in the Procedures.
The move by OAL comes despite allegations by the San Joaquin Tributaries Authority (“SJTA”) that the State Water Board exceeded its statutory authority and failed to comply with the California Water Code. The SJTA filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for mandatory relief challenging the Procedures in Sacramento Superior Court on May 1, 2019, and subsequently filed an amended petition for writ of mandate and complaint on May 20, 2019. According to the SJTA, the State Water Board’s adoption of the Procedures was unlawful, and must therefore be set aside for several reasons, which are fully described in our May 9, 2019 client alert on the litigation. Continue Reading
Every CEQA analysis begins with the threshold question of whether the activity is a “project” as defined by Public Resources Code section 21065 and 21080. In 
On August 12, 2019, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) (collectively “Services”) jointly announced 
This post is Part Two of our blog series on the 2019 amendments to the CEQA Guidelines. This post focuses on amendments in the areas of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, energy, and wildfire impacts, as well as a discussion of OPR’s draft CEQA and Climate Change Advisory.
In Berkeley Hills Watershed Coalition v. City of Berkeley (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 880 [certified for partial publication], the Court of the Appeal for the First District affirmed that the construction of three new single-family homes on adjacent parcels in the Berkeley Hills was exempt under CEQA’s Class 3 exemption for single-family residences in urbanized areas. In doing so, the Court held that the “location exception” to CEQA categorical exemptions (Guidelines, § 15300.2(a)) does not apply because an earthquake fault zone or earthquake-induced landslide area is not an “environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern.” This case importantly limits the location exception to areas that are considered beneficial environmental resources, as opposed to hazardous geologic zones.
On January 3, 2019 the 
On December 18, 2018, the First Appellate District, in McCorkle v. St. Helena (A153238), affirmed the trial court’s denial of a Petition for Writ of Mandate challenging the City of St. Helena’s approval of a multi-dwelling residential development. First, consistent with 
San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego
In a long-awaited decision, on December 24, 2018 the California Supreme Court in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (S219783) affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s decision concerning a challenge to the adequacy of an EIR prepared for the Friant Ranch retirement community (“Project”). Employing a de novo standard of review, the Court found that the Project EIR is inadequate as a matter of law because the EIR did not make a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s air quality impacts to specific health consequences (or explain why it is not feasible to do so). The Court also upheld the lead agency County of Fresno’s discretion to substitute equally effective or more superior future mitigation measures and adopt mitigation measures that do not reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to a less-than-significant level. This decision poses significant hurdles for project proponents going forward with new, heightened requirements for EIR analysis of environmental and health impacts and a more scrutinizing, independent legal standard of review for challenges to the adequacy of an EIR. 