The State Water Resources Control Board’s registrations of small water diversions are ministerial projects and hence exempt from CEQA. As such, allegedly erroneous registrations cannot be challenged under CEQA. Mission Peak...more
In Protect Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin, 70 Cal. App. 5th 951 (2021), the court of appeal upheld a city’s reliance on the infill development categorical exemption under CEQA for a new gas station in an existing shopping...more
Evidence about past wildfires and the risk of future wildfires impacting residents near a proposed project does not require the lead agency to prepare an environmental impact report unless there is substantial evidence...more
In Santa Clara Valley Water District v. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, No. A157127, 2020 WL 7706795 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2020), the court ruled that CEQA does not constrain an agency’s authority to...more
The First District Court of Appeal ruled that CEQA does not constrain an agency’s authority to administer and enforce any other laws, including those authorizing imposition of mitigation requirements. Thus, even after an EIR...more
A federal agency is not required to prepare an environmental impact statement for an action with uncertain environmental effects if the agency reasonably predicts that the effects will not be significant based on available...more
A recent Ninth Circuit decision offers guidance on evaluating connected actions and cumulative impacts under NEPA. The court held that an agency can defer consideration of an action’s cumulative impacts in an EIS when the...more
After a public agency approves a project, the agency’s actions to implement the project—in this case, applying for and accepting a streambed alteration agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife—are not...more
An agency could be equitably estopped from relying on the 35-day statute of limitations applicable to a CEQA Notice of Exemption where the agency had misled the public into expecting the agency would instead circulate a Final...more
Automobile delay (as measured solely by roadway capacity or traffic congestion) cannot constitute a significant environmental impact, even for projects that were approved before the new CEQA guidelines on transportation...more
Unsubstantiated opinions from purported experts are not enough to require preparation of an EIR, the court of appeal recently held in Maacama Watershed Alliance v. County of Sonoma, 40 Cal. App. 5th 1007 (2019), a case in...more
The California Supreme Court clarified what activities are subject to CEQA in its recent decision in Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego, No. S238563, 2019 WL 3884465 (Aug. 19, 2019). First, the...more
A lead agency was not required to evaluate the housing-related impacts of a proposed hotel in a vacant building that was formerly used for rental housing. Hollywoodians Encouraging Rental Opportunities v. City of Los Angeles,...more
The Council on Environmental Quality published draft guidance June 26, 2019, on how to assess greenhouse gas emissions under the National Environmental Policy Act, the law that requires environmental impact assessment for...more
A Summary of Published Appellate Opinions Under the California Environmental Quality Act -
The California Supreme Court issued its only CEQA opinion of 2018 at the end of the year. In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, the...more
1/14/2019
/ Air Quality Standards ,
Appeals ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Building Permits ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Carbon Emissions ,
CEQA ,
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ,
Environmental Policies ,
Excessive Noise ,
Exemptions ,
Final Judgment ,
General Plan ,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ,
Historic Preservation ,
Housing Developers ,
Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
Mixed-Use Zoning ,
Oil & Gas ,
Railroads ,
Railways ,
Real Estate Market ,
Regulatory Oversight ,
Res Judicata ,
Risk Mitigation ,
Sierra Club v County of Fresno ,
Standard of Review ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Substantial Evidence Standard ,
Tenants ,
Traffic Impact Assessments ,
Trucking Industry ,
Urban Planning & Development
The California Court of Appeal rejected a facial challenge to the EIR addendum process, and held that an agency is not required to make new findings in connection with approval of an EIR addendum. Save Our Heritage...more
In the latest decision in the long-running legal saga over the proposed Newhall Ranch development in Los Angeles County, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the Army Corps of Engineers’ EIS and Section 404...more
10/17/2018
/ Appeals ,
Clean Water Act ,
Endangered Species Act (ESA) ,
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ,
Navigable Waters ,
NEPA ,
Scientific Evidence ,
Section 404 ,
Standing ,
State Department of Fish and Wildlife ,
Stormwater Discharge Permits ,
US Army Corps of Engineers ,
Wastewater ,
Water Quality
Claims of significant noise impact unsupported by expert opinion, fact, or reasonable inference did not provide grounds for challenging a negative declaration, the court of appeal held in Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa, 23 Cal....more
On April 9, 2018, the heads of a dozen federal agencies executed a memorandum of understanding on implementation of Executive Order 13807, which directed federal agencies to expedite environmental review and permitting for...more
A general plan policy that limited the size of retail tenants in certain areas of a city was not likely to cause urban decay and was not inconsistent with other general plan policies encouraging infill development, the court...more
A certified regulatory program, which is exempt from some of CEQA’s requirements, must still comply with CEQA’s core policies and standards, which include considering feasible alternatives and cumulative impacts and...more
12/27/2017
/ CEQA ,
Economic Impact Analysis ,
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ,
Environmental Policies ,
Pesticides ,
Petition for Writ of Mandate ,
Product Labels ,
Regulatory Oversight ,
Regulatory Standards ,
Remand ,
State and Local Government ,
Toxic Chemicals
A draft EIR that studies five very different project alternatives without identifying a preferred alternative violates CEQA by failing to provide the public with a stable project to review, the court of appeal held in Washoe...more
President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 13807, on August 15, 2017, which is intended to accelerate the environmental review and permitting for infrastructure projects that require an environmental impact statement...more
8/28/2017
/ Clean Water Act ,
Deregulation ,
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ,
Environmental Review ,
Executive Orders ,
Federal Land ,
Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) ,
Flood Zones ,
Infrastructure ,
NEPA ,
Permits ,
Revocation ,
Trump Administration