In Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. A160560, the Court of Appeal held that under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and related procedural rules, real parties in interest are not automatically considered indispensable parties to CEQA litigation. Whether a real party in interest is indispensable
On August 19, 2021, in Save Our Access – San Gabriel Mountains vs. Watershed Conservation Authority, the Second District Court of Appeal, in reversing the lower court’s judgement, upheld an Environmental Impact Report’s (EIR’s) finding of less than significant impact under CEQA for an intentional reduction in parking meant to protect and restore the
In August 2021, the First District Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Pacific Merchant Shipping Association v. Newsom, where the court held that Public Resources Code section 21168.6.7 does not impose on the Governor a deadline by which to certify construction of a new baseball park and mixed-use development project at the Howard
On June 30, 2021, in Save Lafayette Trees, et. al v. East Bay Regional Park District (Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Real Party in Interest), the First District Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a CEQA claim as time-barred because it found that PG&E, a necessary and indispensable party, was not bound to
Published on February 9, 2021, the Court of Appeal in Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso v. City of San Jose held that the City of San Jose’s (“City’s”) posting of a second, revised Notice of Determination (“NOD”) adequately triggered CEQA’s abbreviated, 30-day statute of limitations despite the fact that the City failed to provide a copy to the Petitioner’s representative as requested. While CEQA requires lead agencies to provide notices to those who have requested them, the Court held that the revised NOD in this instance provided constructive notice sufficient to trigger the 30-day statute and dismiss the case.
In an opinion published on August 17, 2020, the Third Appellate District in Martis Camp Community Association v. County of Placer ruled that Placer County had violated CEQA by adopting an addendum to support abandonment of a roadway. Despite the statutory presumption against subsequent review under CEQA, the Third District determined that the County had
On August 27, 2020, in Protecting Our Water and Environmental Resources v. County of Stanislaus, Case No. S251709 (“Protecting Our Water”), the California Supreme Court held that the County in that instance could not categorically classify its issuance of groundwater well construction permits as ministerial decisions exempt from environmental review under the
The Sixth Appellate District, in Willow Glen Trestle Conservancy v. San Jose (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 127, held that seeking a new Streambed Alteration Agreement (“SAA”) from the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (“CDFW”) for a previously approved project does not constitute a “further discretionary approval” within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and
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.
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.
The amendments to the CEQA Guidelines are designed to improve the analysis of impacts from GHG emissions in CEQA documents. These amendments clarify the manner in which the significance of a project’s GHG emissions is determined, and give the lead agency discretion to select a model or methodology to estimate GHG emissions. Several of these amendments were made to ensure consistency with recent appellate case law dealing with GHG emissions, cumulative impacts, and significance determinations, including Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204 and Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497.