Category: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Yolo County Ruling: First CEQA Process Streamlined Under SB 149
California took a significant step in streamlining the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process with the passage of SB 149, a law that allows the California Governor to certify certain infrastructure projects for judicial fast-tracking. The law requires courts to decide CEQA challenges to certified projects within 270 days...
CEQA Lead Agencies Do Not Waive Defense that CEQA Did Not Apply Despite Proceeding under CEQA
Recently, the court in Rominger v. County of Colusa found that a lead agency which approved a mitigated negative declaration for a project, can take the seemingly inconsistent position that the proposed project was not a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) project or was exempt from CEQA when its...
City’s Decision to Not Prepare an EIR Upheld Under Substantial Evidence Standard
Earlier this month, in Latinos Unidos De Napa v. City of Napa, the California Court of Appeals upheld the city of Napa’s determination that it did not have to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when enacting minor changes to its general plan and...
CEQA EXCEPTION FOR BIKE LANES NEARING THE FINISH LINE
While most attempts to push-through last-minute CEQA reform were parked until next year, one bill, AB 2245, glided through the legislature and now heads to the finish line on Governor Brown’s desk for signature. The bill, which provides streamlined environmental review for certain bike lane projects, was unanimously passed by...
LITIGATION UPDATE: CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT GRANTS REVIEW OF L.A. LIGHT RAIL CASE
On August 8th, the California Supreme Court granted review of the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority. As previously blogged in April, the Second District found that a lead agency’s use of projected future conditions to measure the environmental impacts that a...
Parties Can Toll CEQA Statute of Limitations
Last week, in Salmon Protection and Watershed Network v. County of Marin, the California Court of Appeals found that a public agency and a party disputing the adequacy of an environmental impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) can enter into a tolling agreement to toll or suspend the...
Second Appellate District Approves Use of Projected Future Baseline to Measure Environmental Impacts in L.A. Light Rail Case
On Tuesday, the Second District Court of Appeal issued its decision in Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority , ruling that a lead agency’s use of projected future conditions to measure the environmental impacts that a long-term infrastructure project will have on traffic and air quality did...
Supersized “Green” Projects May Now Enter the CEQA Litigation Fast Lane
Stating that it was “time for big thinking and big projects that put Californians back to work,” Governor Jerry Brown recently signed into law two bills, AB 900 and SB 292, aimed at streamlining the judicial review process for large-scale development projects. Introduced in the final days of the legislative session, AB...
California Supreme Says Stay: Cap and Trade Work Allowed to Continue Pending Appeal
Last week, the California Supreme Court ruled to allow the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to continue to work on the cap and trade regulations contained within AB32’s Scoping Plan. We have brought you the blow-by-blow action in this case, and as we blogged, CARB’s implementation of the Scoping Plan was temporarily halted earlier...
No Backwards CEQA: California Appeals Court Finds CEQA Review Required for Effects of the Environment on a Project
The California Court of Appeal in Orange County found late last week that agencies are not required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential impact that the present environment would have on a proposed project. If you just read that and rubbed your eyes that is because it seems...
CARB’S AB 32 Scoping Plan Environmental Analysis – Take Two
On Monday, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a Supplement to the environmental analysis (known as the Functional Equivalent Document) of the 2008 AB 32 Scoping Plan. The Supplement provides CARB’s revised analysis of the alternatives to the greenhouse gas reduction measures proposed in the Scoping Plan, including alternatives to the cap-and-trade program. The Supplement comes...
Update #3 on CEQA/AB32 Case: California Appellate Court Temporarily Stays Lower Court’s Ruling
We have previously blogged about Association of Irritated Residents v. California Air Resources Board . You know… the San Francisco Superior Court case brought by environmental justice groups challenging the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) environmental analysis of AB 32. We last reported that Judge Goldsmith had issued a final judgment...
Update #2 on San Francisco CEQA/AB 32 Case: Final Judgment Sheds More Light on Ruling’s Impact
We have brought you blog posts about the San Francisco Superior Court case brought by environmental justice groups challenging the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) environmental analysis of AB 32. As we reported in March, Judge Goldsmith’s final ruling stated that CARB violated CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) by failing to...
Update on San Francisco Case Halting AB32: Judge makes final his ruling to put California’s greenhouse gas bill on hold
Last month, we reported on the tentative ruling issued by a San Francisco Superior Court judge calling into question the fate of California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (better known as AB32). Well, last week, Judge Ernest Goldsmith affirmed that ruling. His final order halts implementation of AB32 because the California...
Wait-and-See Instead of Cap-and-Trade: Judge puts California’s plans to implement greenhouse gas bill on hold
In a somewhat ironic twist, a San Francisco Superior Court judge has tentatively ruled that the CARB (the California Air Resources Board) violated CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) (I know, I know, the acronyms never end!) by adopting certain plans for the implementation of California’s landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (better...
Another Rule Bites The Dust: The Ninth Circuit Abandons the “Federal Defendant” Rule in NEPA Cases
Thanks to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, gone are the days when private parties and state and local governments were prohibited from intervening on the liability or merit stage of claims brought under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”). CEQA GavelNEPA, much like it’s California equivalent...
Bay Area Air Quality District Takes The Plunge
After much thrashing about and hesitancy to act by air quality regulators throughout California and the nation, on June 2, 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which has jurisdiction over the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay area, became the first air quality regulator to adopt guidelines for...
Greenberg Glusker Environmental Litigation Team Wins Court Affirmation of Culver City Moratorium on New Oil Well Drilling By PXP
Rights of Old Oil Do Not Trump Needs of New Residents; Related CEQA Lawsuit Against LA County Set for April 5th Trial Greenberg Glusker today announced that the Los Angeles Superior Court has upheld the right of its client, the City of Culver City, California, to regulate expansion and...
California Supreme Court Rules that Air District Must Use Existing Conditions as the Baseline for Environmental Review
On March 15, the California Supreme Court in Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District ruled that the South Coast Air Quality Management District violated the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA when it failed to prepare an environmental impact report before approving a...
