On the heels of its notice of federal rulemaking under the National Environmental Policy Act (see our July 2 blog post) and other more modest efforts at reform on the administrative level, the Administration on July 19 announced a series of proposed changes to the regulations governing administration of the federal Endangered Species Act
For the First Time in Forty Years, White House Council on Environmental Quality Poised to Propose Major Overhaul of its Implementing Regulations Under NEPA
On June 20, 2018, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued an advanced notice of proposed federal rulemaking, soliciting public comments on whether and how CEQ should update its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations. Comments on the proposed rulemaking are due July 20, 2018.
Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach
On March 30, 2017, in the first of at least three CEQA rulings expected this year, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Carol Corrigan, the Court invalidated an EIR for the coastal development at Banning Ranch approved by the City of Newport Beach. Despite the fact that the EIR addressed in detail the project’s physical impacts on wetlands and sensitive habitats, the Court nevertheless held that it failed to adequately disclose and consider the controversy surrounding the potential presence of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (“ESHA”) under the Coastal Act. This decision falls within a growing line of cases mandating inclusion of non-CEQA regulatory requirements within the confines of the CEQA environmental review process, and in a manner that places ever greater burdens on lead agencies and EIR preparers.
Downey Brand’s Fall 2016 CEQA and Land Use Litigation Update
On October 7, I had the privilege of presenting the annual CEQA and Land Use Litigation Update at the League of California Cities’ Annual Conference & Expo in Long Beach. The Annual Conference is the state’s largest gathering of city officials from throughout California, and addresses a host of cutting-edge legal issues in the field
California Supreme Court Rejects “New Project Test” and Defers to Agencies on Whether Project Modifications Require Subsequent Environmental Review
On September 19, in a long-awaited and unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District. The opinion, authored by the Court’s newest justice, Leondra Kruger, resolves a split among the Courts of Appeal regarding the proper procedures for addressing changes to a project that have already been subject to CEQA review. The Court clarified that such changes are not subject to an independent, “new project” threshold test, and that an agency’s decision that no EIR is required as a result of proposed modifications to a previously-approved project is subject to review for substantial evidence. The decision also affirmed the validity of CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and its application of the principles of finality and subsequent review to projects originally approved with a negative declaration.
Air District CEQA Guidelines Partially Invalidated For Mandating “CEQA-In-Reverse” Analysis, Following Remand From California Supreme Court
On remand from the California Supreme Court, the First Appellate District has issued its second ruling in California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. In this case, CBIA challenged BAAQMD’s 2010 “CEQA Air Quality Guidelines”—specifically, the Guidelines’ thresholds and methods for assessing the effects of siting new sensitive receptors (residences) near existing sources of toxic air contaminants and other harmful air emissions, such as freeways. Last year, the California Supreme Court held that CEQA “does not generally require an agency to consider the effects of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project’s future users or residents” (so-called ‘CEQA-in-Reverse’). Requiring analysis of the existing environment’s effects on a project, the Supreme Court emphasized, would “impermissibly expand the scope of CEQA.” The Supreme Court remanded the case to the First District Court of Appeal to apply its general ruling to the specific aspects of the BAAQMD Guidelines still in dispute.
Appellate District Rejects ‘Discovery Rule’ in CEQA Cases and Holds Challenge to Richmond Crude-By-Rail Facility Untimely Under 180-day Statute of Limitations
On July 19, the First District Court of Appeal published its opinion in Communities for a Better Environment v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. In this case, Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) and a host of other environmental groups sought to challenge a rail-to-truck facility for the transloading of crude oil permitted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that CBE’s petition was time barred under Section 21167(d) of the Public Resources Code for failure to bring the claim within 180 days of BAAQMD’s approval of an Authority to Construct (ATC) that authorized the transloading of Bakken crude. In doing so, both courts rejected the argument by CBE that the “discovery rule” should apply in CEQA cases where, as here, there is no public notice of the approval.
Appellate District in Newhall Ranch Case Limits its Jurisdiction to Supervise Agency Compliance with Rulings in CEQA Cases
A
s we reported last year, the California Supreme Court in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife invalidated the greenhouse gas analysis and mitigation for the fully-protected unarmored stickleback on review of an environmental impact report (“EIR”) prepared for the Newhall Ranch development in northern Los Angeles County. In its ruling, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the lower appeals court to determine two issues left undecided—the project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources and the endangered steelhead trout.
On July 11, 2016, the Second Appellate District finally issued its ruling after remand from the Supreme Court. In unpublished sections of its opinion, the court provided further direction to the trial court and lead agency on the greenhouse gas analysis and species issues and reiterated its earlier ruling—that the EIR’s evaluation of tribal cultural resources and steelhead trout was supported by substantial evidence. In the only published portion of the opinion, the court grappled with a procedural issue that only a CEQA aficionado could love—whether the appeals court itself can retain jurisdiction to supervise directly the agency’s compliance with its ruling. Appeals court jurisdiction in CEQA cases has witnessed some interesting turns in recent years, as the Legislature has added targeted streamlining provisions and original jurisdiction in the court of appeals in some instances. (See, e.g., Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21168.6 [CPUC challenges], 21185 [environmental leadership projects].) The court here, however, found that it did not have the authority to step into the shoes of the trial court.
Downey Brand’s Spring 2016 CEQA and Land Use Litigation Update
I recently had the privilege of presenting the annual CEQA and Land Use Litigation Update at this year’s League of California Cities City Attorneys’ Spring Conference in Newport Beach. The annual conference is attended by more than 450 city attorneys and other legal professionals from across California, and addresses a host of cutting-edge legal issues
Appeals Court Affirms Cadiz Valley Groundwater Project
In a series of sweeping opinions, the Fourth Appellate District on Tuesday, May 10, upheld the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project against six separate challenges brought by a host of environmental organizations and a salt mining operation. The Cadiz Project, initiated by the Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD) and Cadiz, Inc. in a public/private partnership, involves plans to pump native groundwater from the Fenner Valley Aquifer System in the Mojave Desert and deliver the water for municipal and industrial uses in Southern California. A later phase of the Project would include importing water for storage in the basin. With this ruling, the Cadiz Project has survived an onslaught of organized opposition. Six legal challenges were directed at overturning approvals granted by SMWD, as the CEQA lead agency, and the County, as the agency responsible for regulating the Project under the County’s own Desert Groundwater Management Ordinance.