CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act

Subscribe to CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act

On January 20, 2016, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) released a revised draft of thresholds for measuring transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). These draft thresholds are designed to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (“GHG”) pursuant to its mandate under Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013). The initial draft was released for review in August 2014.

OPR’s revised draft is fundamentally similar to its initial draft. In particular, under both drafts, the focus of a project’s transportation impacts analysis under revised Guidelines would shift from analyzing the project’s potential to increase traffic delays to the project’s effects on GHG emissions by focusing on vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”). The CEQA Guidelines have always focused a project’s potential transportation impacts analysis on the project’s potential to increase traffic delays by analyzing the project’s level of service (“LOS”). …
Continue Reading Updates to CEQA Guidelines for Transportation Impacts Analysis Under SB 743

On Thursday, December 10, environmental organizations filed a complaint against Kern County in California Superior Court alleging that the County violated the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) by preparing a “grossly inadequate” Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for its new oil and gas rules.  The Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (jointly “the Sierra Club”), along with several other local organizations, take issue with the programmatic approach of the EIR, and urge a well-by-well environmental analysis.  This lawsuit comes as no surprise to the County.  Environmental groups have a long history of opposing oil and gas development in Kern County, which produces over 70% of all the oil in California.

This lawsuit comes in reaction to a Kern County zoning ordinance amendment which harnessed broad local support.  On November 9, 2015, the Kern County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved amendments to Title 19 of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance which provides a streamline permitting process for oil and gas operations.  Notably, the new ordinance encourages oil and gas producers to work with surface owners to agree on a development plan, promoting cooperation and transparency.  The amendments also required the County to conduct an extensive environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA.  The Board of Supervisors certified the Final EIR after holding multiple public Scoping Meetings and reviewing various mitigation measures.Continue Reading Environmental Challenge Blasts Kern County Oil and Gas Rules

On Friday, November 6, three environmental organizations filed suit against the City of Los Angeles in California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. The three groups, Youth for Environmental Justice, the Center for Biological Diversity and the South Central Youth Leadership Coalition, allege that the “City of Los Angeles has for years employed a pattern or practice of rubber stamping oil-drilling applications in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).” Verified Complaint and Petition for Writ of Mandate, at 2. By categorically exempting oil-drilling projects from CEQA, the Complaint states that L.A. has permitted a disproportionately high number of drilling operations in low-income communities and neighborhoods where people of color reside. According to the environmental groups, this is a racially discriminatory practice because the City of L.A. exhibits a pattern of “developing and approving weaker conditions for drill sites in communities where a vast majority of the residents identify as Latino and black.” Id. at 26.

The Complaint focuses especially on the risks of drilling operations on children. “Because  they breathe at a higher rate, and drink more water and consume more food in proportion to their body size, children receive higher doses of toxins and contaminants than adults.” Id. at 12-13. Further, in contrast to the public outcry over fracking, the environmental groups note that the emissions from oil and gas development in L.A. are associated with “traditional drilling,” not necessarily hydraulic fracturing. The Complaint also addresses the alleged risks of acidizing and gravel packing techniques, though.
Continue Reading Environmental Justice Lawsuit Accuses L.A. of Discriminatory Oil Permitting

As one of many implementation steps under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA” codified as Water Code §§ 10720 et seq.), basin boundary regulations were released recently by the California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”), with a public comment deadline set for Friday, September 4. DWR is holding public meetings this week to solicit…

With the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”) taking effect on January 1, 2015, the California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) is in full swing of holding public workshops and information sessions to solicit input from stakeholders and other members of the public as well as to answer questions regarding SGMA’s various milestone requirements.

On July…

On June 4, 2015, the Court of Appeal ruled that California Fish and Game Code section 1602 (“Section 1602”) unambiguously requires notification to the Department of Fish and Wildlife (“Department”) if an entity or individual plans to “substantially divert” water, even when the legal right to use the water was previously established. (Siskiyou…

Today saw two significant developments for oil and gas operators utilizing well stimulation treatments in California.

Pursuant to SB 4, the Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources released a statewide programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) analyzing the potential environmental impacts associated with well stimulation treatments, including hydraulic fracturing (aka “fracking”).…

The Surface Transportation Board (“STB”) issued a declaratory order in a 2-1 vote last Friday, finding that the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is categorically preempted by federal law, as it relates to the Fresno to Bakersfield segment of the California High-Speed Rail Project (“HSR Project”).

Section 10501(b) of Title 49 of the United States Code provides that remedies with respect to rail transportation are exclusive and preempt remedies provided under State or Federal law. The STB has previously ruled that states or localities are precluded from intruding into matters directly regulated by the STB, in particular when the state or local action would have the effect of foreclosing or unduly restricting the rail carrier’s ability to conduct its operations or otherwise unreasonably burden interstate commerce.

Under this section, the STB could not overlook the fact that CEQA, as a state pre-clearance requirement, could ultimately deny or significantly delay the High-Speed Rail Authority’s (the “Authority”) right to construct a railroad line. This would directly defy the STB’s exclusive jurisdiction over a project that it regulates. Even if it could be argued that the Authority created an implied agreement by voluntarily beginning the CEQA process, the STB concluded that any such agreement would unreasonably interfere with interstate commerce because it would prevent the Authority from exercising its authority to construct the rail line, which it had been previously authorized to do by the STB.
Continue Reading High Speed Rail Moves Forward Without CEQA Review

Governor Brown has signed two new bills amending the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  AB 52 establishes new consultation procedures with California Native American tribes, and provides that an adverse change to a tribal cultural resource is a significant impact under CEQA.  AB 1104 extends an existing CEQA exemption for certain pipeline projects to biogas…

Citizens for the Restoration of L Street v. City of Fresno, et al., No. F066498,(Cal. Ct. App. 5th Dist., August 28, 2014)

In a two-part opinion, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment and writ of mandate, finding that the City of Fresno’s Municipal Code did not delegate authority to its Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to approve CEQA documents, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) at issue. The Fifth District also upheld the trial court’s holding that the substantial evidence standard, not the fair argument standard, governs review of decisions regarding designation of historic resources.

The Project, a small 1.29 acre residential infill development in downtown Fresno, required demolition of two homes—one of which was previously designated a “Heritage Property” under the Municipal Code—necessitating a demolition permit from the HPC. In concert with its approval of the demolition permits, the HPC also reviewed and approved the Project MND, concluding that demolition of the two homes would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. Citizens for the Restoration of L Street (“Citizens”), a local association, appealed the HPC’s adoption of the MND. The City Council heard Citizens’ appeal, and passed a motion: (1) upholding the HPC’s finding that neither of the two homes was an historical resource under CEQA; (2) electing not to exercise its discretion to designate the homes historical, or the Project area an historical district; and (3) upholding the HPC’s approval of the CEQA findings and MND. Shortly thereafter, both homes were demolished.Continue Reading Is It Historical Under CEQA? Court Confirms Substantial Evidence Remains the Standard

In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Cal. Ct. App. 5th Dist. May 27, 2014), the Fifth Appellate District found fault with the County of Fresno’s (County)  review of the Friant Ranch Project (Project) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The appellate court concluded that the County’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not sufficiently correlate the Project’s air quality impacts with impacts on human health, and did not sufficiently define mitigation measures designed to address air quality impacts. With respect to correlating air emissions to human health impacts, it is worth noting that the court did not address the extent to which this is possible. Initial reactions from air consultants who have reviewed this decision is that it is not technically possible to calculate this correlation with such specificity, leaving open the question of how lead agencies will respond to this decision in future CEQA documents.
Continue Reading What’s a ROG and Can It Hurt Me? EIR Overturned For Failure to Explain Air Quality Impacts to Human Health

About Stoel Rives Environmental Law

Learn More

Few firms view their Environment, Land Use, and Natural Resources practices as core legal services. Stoel Rives is one of them. The firm ranks #8 in the United States according to Law360’s list of the largest practices of its kind. Our sophisticated compliance counseling, permitting, regulatory development, and litigation practices continue a long tradition of specialization and deep experience. Our environment, land use, and natural resource attorneys incorporate prior agency experience, technical acumen, and industry knowledge into their legal advice. They also build strong relationships with agency officials and industry associations. Our litigation successes include landmark decisions. More than 60 attorneys, paralegals, and compliance analysts comprise Stoel Rives’ nationwide Environment, Land Use & Natural Resources practice.