In an opinion filed on February 1, 2021, the First Appellate District in Schmid v. City and County of San Francisco found that petitioners challenging the City of San Francisco’s decision to remove a controversial sculpture had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by not appealing the CEQA determination by the San Francisco Historic Preservation Committee (“HPC”) to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (“Board of Supervisors”). The challenge involved the unelected HPC’s decision to remove a sculpture facing criticism for “displaying a racist attitude towards Native Americans,” a dispute that the court described as “a local version of the controversies over removal of commemorative symbols, generally names and statues of historical figures, that have played out across the country recently.” The Court found that, “[u]nder CEQA and San Francisco Administrative Code, chapter 31, any appeal of a categorical exemption determination must be made to the Board of Supervisors, as the body of elected officials responsible for making final CEQA determinations.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21151(c); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15061(e); S.F. Admin. Code, § 31.16(a).)
On December 11, 2019, the California Supreme Court granted review of the Third District’s decision in County of Butte v. Department of Water Resources, dismissing a CEQA challenge to DWR’s relicensing application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Oroville Dam on the basis that the claim was preempted by federal law. The Court of Appeal held the Federal Power Act (FPA) exclusively occupies the field of dam licensing and preempts state regulation, and accordingly found that it had no jurisdiction to consider the case. Continue Reading
On February 18, 2021, the First Appellate District issued an opinion in Sweeney et al. v. California Regional Water Quality Control Bd., San Francisco Bay Region et al. (Case No. A153583) (“Sweeney”). The opinion is much anticipated given its relevance to the continued validity of the State Water Resources Control Board’s recently adopted State Procedures for Discharges of Dredged and Fill Material (“Procedures”). The Appellate Court reversed the lower court in the entirety, substantially deferring to the actions and prosecutorial discretion of the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Regional Water Board”, collectively, “Water Boards”) based on application of a revised standard of review. Importantly, according to the court, the appropriate interpretation of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act’s (“Porter-Cologne Act”) definition of waste provides the Water Boards adequate authority to regulate discharges of dredge and fill material, bolstering the Water Boards’ efforts to continue with implementation and enforcement of the Procedures, which were recently called into question and narrowed by the trial court order issued in San Joaquin Tributaries Authority v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (Case No. 34-2019-80003133) (“SJTA”). A full analysis of that order is available here. Continue Reading
On his first day in office on January 20, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order titled, “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis” (the Order). The Order directed federal agencies to immediately begin a review of federal regulations and regulatory action over the last four years. The Order directed agency heads to consider revision, rescission, or suspension of regulations rather than directing any particular course of action. However, the Order illuminates the Biden Administration’s priorities with respect to the regulatory landscape for energy and the environment. Continue Reading
On December 17, 2020, the Sacramento County Superior Court substantially limited the scope of waters to which the State Procedures for Discharges of Dredged and Fill Material (“Procedures”) apply through its decision in San Joaquin Tributaries Authority v. State Water Resources Control Board (Case No. 34-2019-80003133). According to the Court, the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) exceeded its policy-making and water quality control plan development authority, resulting in the restriction of the Procedures to those waters regulated under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and State “ocean waters.” The Court’s decision significantly narrows the delta between the discharges of dredged and fill material regulated exclusively under the Procedures, and those that will now be regulated under both federal and state water quality control laws. However, because the Court’s opinion did not invalidate the Procedures in their entirety, permittees will still need to evaluate application of the Procedures, though to a constricted set of waters and aquatic features. Continue Reading
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. Continue Reading
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 abused its discretion in relying on the wrong EIR as a basis for analysis. Continue Reading
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 California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.). While the Court’s Opinion does not state that all well permits must undergo CEQA review, it narrows the grounds on which the ministerial exemption may apply. And since county well ordinances across the State comprise similar provisions, this ruling upsets the common practice of treating such permits as ministerial, not subject to CEQA. More importantly, however, the Court’s ruling interrupts a growing trend in the cases to provide some relief from CEQA where agencies lack sufficient discretion, and creates uncertainty for lead agencies by holding that ministerial permitting decisions must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Continue Reading
In a ruling that should send shivers up the spine of any public agency in California needing to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the Fourth District Court of Appeal on July 30 held that any email correspondence related to a project and its compliance with CEQA must be retained as part of the agency’s record of administrative proceedings, even if the agency’s document retention policy states otherwise. This marks the first ruling (or statute or regulation) to impose such a duty.
Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court of San Diego, Lead Case No. D076605, stems from numerous CEQA writ petitions related to San Diego County’s (“County”) approval of the Newland Sierra Project. The specific issue in the opinion is the impact of the County’s document retention policy, which directed City staff to automatically delete emails not marked or saved as “official records” after 60 days. In some tension with that retention policy, Public Resources Code sub-sections 21167.6(e)(7) and (e)(10) require agencies to include external and non-privileged internal emails and other written communications related to a CEQA project in the administrative record of proceedings when litigation is filed challenging the project under CEQA. In this instance, the County argued that some emails related to the project and its compliance with CEQA had been deleted pursuant to the County’s document retention policy and thus could not be produced in response to discovery or for the administrative record. A battle over discovery of the records ensued. Ultimately, a trial court discovery referee ruled that there was no duty to retain emails under CEQA, and therefore denied efforts by petitioners to compel the agency to produce the records. Continue Reading
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 therefore does not require supplemental review.
In 2014, the City of San Jose approved a project to demolish the Willow Glen Railroad Trestle, a railroad bridge over Los Gatos Creek, and replace it with a new steel truss pedestrian bridge. The City approved the project with a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”). The original SAA approved in conjunction with the MND expired. Subsequently, the City applied for, and was granted, an SAA from CDFW to divert the creek during demolition and construction of the new bridge. The Willow Glen Trestle Conservancy challenged the City’s approval of the SAA, arguing that the SAA required subsequent CEQA review. The trial court determined the 2018 SAA did not involve further discretionary approval and petitioners appealed.
Petitioners challenged the 2018 SAA arguing that the new application amounted to a “discretionary approval,” triggering mandatory supplemental review under Public Resources Code section 21166. Section 21166 and its counterpart CEQA Guideline 15162 compel subsequent review in limited circumstances when, after the original approval of a project, a “further discretionary approval on that project” is required. The petitioners argued that the City’s act of seeking and accepting the SAA was a discretionary approval by the City. The court held that while CDFW’s issuance of the final SAA was a CDFW approval, that action did not amount to a City approval. However, the petitioners had failed to challenge CDFW’s approval of the SAA.
Relying on the subsequent review principles articulated by the California Supreme Court in Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Community College District (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, the court emphasized that Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 are intended to limit the circumstances under which subsequent review is required by stating that information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. These limitations are meant to “balance CEQA’s central purpose of promoting consideration of the environmental consequences of public decisions with interests in finality and efficiency.” (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Community College District (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, italics added.) If every action taken to implement an approved project was considered another approval of the project, the City’s final consideration of the project would be subject to endless reopening.
The court concluded that the City’s 2018 SAA application was a step in implementing the already approved project, not a further discretionary approval, because obtaining a SAA was contemplated in the MND. Consequently, the City was not required to conduct supplemental review for the 2018 SAA.