*
Presented By:
Prepared For:
Lori D. Ballance
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
Assn. of California Airports
2013 Fall Conference
*
* September 13: Last day for legislative action
on bills.
* Prognosis:
No meaningful, pro-lead agency
improvements for the processing of CEQA
documents or resulting legal challenges.
* Still proceeding by way of legislative carve outs
for “special” projects (e.g., proposed
exemption for Sacramento Kings arena).
*
* What’s missing?
* Specialized CEQA compliance courts.
* Law protecting lead agencies from “late hits.”
* Is there any good news?
* Multiple efforts to overturn the Ballona decision
(which held that there is no requirement to
analyze impacts of the environment on a project)
appear to have stalled.
* Likely to be subject to further judicial scrutiny
another day.
*
* What’s left?
* SB 731 – Attempts to create streamlining benefits for
transit-oriented infill development.
* Also presently contemplates adoption of amendments to
the CEQA Guidelines requiring the translation of certain
notices.
* Also presently contemplates adoption of guidance
regarding economic displacement impacts.
* AB 52 – Problematic bill contemplating protections
for newly defined “tribal resources.”
*
*
* March 2013 - The Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research, in conjunction with the Council
on Environmental Quality, released a draft
guidance document titled, “NEPA and CEQA:
Integrating State and Federal Environmental
Reviews.”
*
* Summer 2013 – The Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research sought input from
interested stakeholders on amendments to the
State CEQA Guidelines relative to mandatory
updates (fire hazards; GHGs), process
improvements, substantive improvements, and
technical/non-substantive changes.
* Suggestions were due August 30, 2013.
* Rulemaking process to follow.
*
*
* Primary Holding: Lead agency has discretion to
exclusively use a future baseline if the existing
conditions baseline would result in a
misleading analysis or one without
informational value.
* Positive implications for traffic, air quality, and
greenhouse gas analyses.
Case No. S202828
*
* Primary Holding: Use of project-specific
significance thresholds does not violate CEQA,
and does not require formal agency adoption.
* Appendix G is not the be all, end all.
Case No. B233318
*
* Primary Holding: No requirement to conduct CEQA
review prior to adoption of CEQA thresholds of
significance.
* Interpreting CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7;
* Impacts of thresholds were too speculative and not
reasonably foreseeable;
* Declined opportunity to address whether thresholds
require Ballona-esque converse CEQA analysis (i.e.,
evaluation of impacts of the environment on the
project).
Case No. A135335
*
* Primary Holding: Pre-approval communications
between lead agency and project applicant are
not privileged, and properly part of
administrative records prepared in connection
with CEQA litigation.
Case No. F065690
*
* Primary Holding: Under the Brown Act, a local
agency contemplating project approvals and
CEQA certifications must disclose both items on
the agenda.
Case No. F064930
*
* For more information, contact:
Lori D. Ballance
lballance@gdandb.com
760.431.9501