In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the state and several local jurisdictions have issued orders/rules in the last few weeks that affect not only the timing of processing land use and planning entitlements, but also the filing of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other claims challenging land use projects and approvals in California courts. The situation is fluid, but this entry summarizes some of the major orders affecting planning and CEQA deadlines.
In one of the most significant developments, on April 6, 2020, the Judicial Council of California issued Emergency Rules to address impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the judicial branch. Among other things, the Judicial Council added emergency rule 9 to the Rules of Court, which tolls the time to file any type of civil litigation from April 6, 2020 until 90 days after California Governor Gavin Newsom lifts the state of emergency for the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a significant time extension for many civil case types, and CEQA claims in particular, as they otherwise must be filed within 30 or 35 days of agency action. In practice, this means that project proponents and lead agencies will likely have a longer period of uncertainty related to whether a project will be challenged in court, both during the state of emergency and for some time afterward. Continue Reading
On Tuesday, February 25, 2020, the Fifth Appellate District invalidated Kern County’s 2015 Oil and Gas Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), which was intended to streamline the permitting process for a variety of oil and gas activities within unincorporated portions of the County, including for oil and gas production wells and related infrastructure such as well pads and pipelines. Although the Court’s decision does not impact permits that were already issued under the Ordinance, the Court’s decision requires the trial court to issue a writ of mandate vacating and setting aside the Ordinance. Accordingly, and at least for now, future project applicants will not be able to obtain streamlined review under the County’s Ordnance. 
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.
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 