Kathryn L. Oehlschlager

Subscribe to Kathryn L. Oehlschlager's Posts

In Stop Syar Expansion v. County of Napa (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 444, the First District Court of Appeal upheld Napa County’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the expansion of Syar Industries, Inc.’s aggregate mining operations at a local quarry. Citizen group Stop Syar Expansion (“SSE”) filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate under CEQA claiming that the EIR was deficient on 16 counts, including in its analysis of greenhouse gas emissions, water usage baseline, water quality, and general plan consistency. The trial court denied the Petition for Writ of Mandate, and SSE appealed, raising five issues. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that SSE did not exhaust administrative remedies because it failed to raise specific issues in the administrative proceedings as required by the Napa County Code. Additionally, the Court denied SSE’s general plan consistency claim under CEQA, holding that general plan consistency is properly reviewed with traditional mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085.

Single home under construction with 2 builders on the roof

On May 20, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 7, known as the Housing and Jobs Expansion and Extensions Act, which extends expedited California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) judicial review for small-scale housing developments.  In 2011, Assembly Bill 900, known as the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act, created an expedited judicial review process under CEQA for large, multi-benefit housing, clean energy, and manufacturing projects, provided that they met certain requirements, including provisions related to labor.  Eligible projects were entitled to immediate review in the court of appeal—rather than superior court—and would be reviewed on an expedited timeframe.  No AB 900 project has been overturned in court since the law was enacted, and implementation of the law and its benefits resulted in the creation of over 10,000 new housing units.  AB 900 was repealed by its own terms on January 1, 2021.

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…

In an opinion filed on December 29, 2020, the First Appellate District in Santa Clara Valley Water District v. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board upheld a Responsible Agency’s imposition of additional mitigation more than a year after it had issued an initial approval for the project.  Although the court was careful to say that it was addressing “unique circumstances” that would “seldom arise,” the decision is potentially problematic for project proponents, and especially for public agencies trying to pursue necessary public-infrastructure projects.

On June 4, 2020 President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Accelerating the Nation’s Economic Recovery from the COVID-19 Emergency by Expediting Infrastructure Investments and Other Activities,” allowing—and, in fact, directing—federal agencies to circumvent environmental permitting requirements in order to expedite infrastructure projects. The Order is based on the President’s March 13, 2020 declaration of national emergency due to the Novel Coronavirus Disease (“COVID-19”) outbreak and the resulting dramatic downturn in the economy; apparently, the administration concluded that “without intervention, the United States faces the likelihood of a potentially protracted economic recovery with persistent high unemployment.”

The Order directs federal agencies to take all reasonable measures to speed infrastructure investments in order to strengthen the economy. It focuses on expediting the delivery of transportation infrastructure projects, civil works projects, and projects on federal land, directing the Secretaries of Transportation, the Army, Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture to “use all relevant emergency and other authorities to expedite work on, and completion of, all authorized and appropriated” highway and other infrastructure projects; civil works projects; and infrastructure, energy, environmental, and natural resources projects on Federal lands that are within the authority of each of the Secretaries to perform or to advance.

Last month, the Second Appellate District upheld the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“Air District”) Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), which the Air District prepared to analyze the environmental impacts of a refinery project that was intended to increase compliance and help reduce air pollution.  Communities for a Better Environment v. So. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., Case No. B294732 (Apr. 7, 2020).  The project applicant owns and operates two adjacent oil refining facilities in Southern California, and sought to improve the integration of both facilities to allow flexibility in product outputs, which also increased the refinery’s compliance with air regulations, and thus helped reduce air pollutants.  As explained in greater detail below, the decision is particularly noteworthy because the court appears to have expanded the “baseline” analysis tied to air emissions, which is used to measure pre-project vs. post-project impacts to the existing environment.

The Air District’s review of the underlying project took three years and the Air District’s Draft EIR was the subject of over 2,000 public comments, which included comments totaling 1,112 pages from the plaintiff that later challenged the project.  Significantly, 1,798 comments or 85% supported the project—likely because the EIR found that the main environmental impact of the project would be to reduce air pollution; and the Air District’s Final EIR was lengthy and robust, containing 6,075 pages of public comments alone.

The Third District Court of Appeals recently weighed in on the interpretation of Public Resources Code section 21099(b)(2) (“Section 21099(b)(2)”) and newly enacted CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, which govern the consideration of traffic impacts under CEQA. In Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609 (“Citizens”), the Court determined that although Guidelines section 15064.3 does not become effective until July 1, 2020, Section 21099(b)(2) already prevents lead agencies from relying on impacts to vehicle delay to determine that traffic impacts are significant.

The Petitioner challenged the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for an amendment to the City of Sacramento’s General Plan, alleging, among other things, that the project would increase congestion on city streets and would therefore have a significant impact on the environment. The Court disagreed, finding that level of service (LOS)—a method of determining traffic impacts based on congestion and wait times at intersections—is no longer valid under CEQA.

CEQA Statute of Limitations

California Courts of Appeal recently issued two cases addressing the strict statute of limitations applicable to agency action under CEQA.

Citizens for a Responsible Caltrans Decision v. Department of Transportation –  (March 24, 2020, D074374) __ Cal.5th__

The Fourth District in Citizens for a Responsible Caltrans Decision v. Department of Transportation overturned a lower court’s dismissal of a citizen group’s challenge to an exemption issued by California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) for a highway interchange project in San Diego, finding that the Petitioner had pled facts sufficient to allow the lower court to find that the action was timely, and finding as a matter of first impression that the Project was not exempt from CEQA.  This case is a good reminder that courts will strictly scrutinize agency action that appears designed to deceive the public, even if well-intended.

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.

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 Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego, the California Supreme Court held that regardless of the nature of a project, CEQA applies if it…