South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal. App. 5th 321
In 2014, Forest City California Residential Development, Inc. proposed a mixed-use business and residential project known as “5M” in the area bounded by Mission, Fifth, Howard, and Sixth Streets in San Francisco. The 5M site included
Maacama Watershed Alliance v. County of Sonoma (2019) Cal.App.5th 1007
In 2015, Knight Bridge Vineyards LLC sought approval from the County of Sonoma to develop a two-story, 5,500 square foot winery, a 17,500 square foot wine cave, tasting room, wastewater treatment and water storage facility, fire protection facility, and mechanical area on an 86-acre parcel
Lake Norconian Club Foundation v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 39 Cal. App. 5th 1044
The California Department of Corrections (Department) operates a prison next to the historic Lake Norconian Club, a former resort and hotel constructed in the 1920’s. The Department used the building as a drug rehabilitation facility, and later, as prison
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.
The move by OAL comes despite allegations by the San Joaquin Tributaries Authority (“SJTA”) that the State Water Board exceeded its statutory authority and failed to comply with the California Water Code. The SJTA filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for mandatory relief challenging the Procedures in Sacramento Superior Court on May 1, 2019, and subsequently filed an amended petition for writ of mandate and complaint on May 20, 2019. According to the SJTA, the State Water Board’s adoption of the Procedures was unlawful, and must therefore be set aside for several reasons, which are fully described in our May 9, 2019 client alert on the litigation.
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
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 three rules that significantly revamp regulations implementing the federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). With the last comprehensive revisions to ESA regulations occurring in 1986, the Trump Administration’s trio of new rules herald a new era for the ESA with a species-specific protections approach for “threatened” species, renewed clarification on species listing/delisting and the designation of critical habitat, and updated definitions and procedures for the interagency consultation process.
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.
On Tuesday, April 2, 2019, the California State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) adopted its proposed State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredge or Fill Material to Waters of the State (“Procedures”). The Procedures were adopted after a lengthy stakeholder process and represent an attempt by the State to compromise among the non-governmental organization (“NGO”) community and the regulated community, which span a broad array of stakeholders, including developers, agriculture, municipalities, water and flood control districts, and industry. The Procedures consist of: (1) a state-wide definition of wetlands; (2) a framework for determining whether a feature meeting the wetland definition is a water of the state (“Jurisdictional Framework”), (3) wetland delineation procedures, and (4) procedures for application submittal and the review and approval of water quality certifications, waste discharge requirements (“WDRs”), and waivers of WDRs for dredge or fill activities (collectively referred to as “Orders”). Among other ramifications, the new Procedures largely duplicate (and in some respects are inconsistent with) federal procedures, but add a significant new layer to the already byzantine regulatory process for permitting projects that involve fill of federal and state waters and wetlands.
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.
On January 3, 2019 the Natural Resources Agency (“Agency”) announced that the long awaited comprehensive amendments to the CEQA Guidelines are now in effect. The last major update to the Guidelines was in the late 1990s. As a result, the Agency and the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) had a significant amount of material to synthesize in preparing these amendments, including several legislative changes and over two decades of CEQA case law.
The amendments include two new sections and revisions to 29 existing sections and three appendices. Many of the revisions merely reflect holdings from previous case law and will not generate new requirements in preparing CEQA documents. Some revisions, however, do constitute substantive changes in impact analysis and it will be important for public agency staff, environmental consultants, and attorneys to review these amendments carefully. To access a complete copy of the revised CEQA Guidelines click here.