ceqa: a year in review
DESCRIPTION
CEQA: A Year In Review. Presented By: Lori D. Ballance Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP Prepared For:Assn. of California Airports 2013 Fall Conference. Legislative CEQA Reform. September 13: Last day for legislative action on bills. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: CEQA: A Year In Review](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56814ad3550346895db7ecb5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Presented By: Lori D. Ballance Gatzke Dillon & Ballance
LLPPrepared For: Assn. of California Airports
2013 Fall Conference
![Page 2: CEQA: A Year In Review](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56814ad3550346895db7ecb5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
![Page 3: CEQA: A Year In Review](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56814ad3550346895db7ecb5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
*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).
![Page 4: CEQA: A Year In Review](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56814ad3550346895db7ecb5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
*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.
![Page 5: CEQA: A Year In Review](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56814ad3550346895db7ecb5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
*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.”
![Page 6: CEQA: A Year In Review](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56814ad3550346895db7ecb5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
![Page 7: CEQA: A Year In Review](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56814ad3550346895db7ecb5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
*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.”
![Page 8: CEQA: A Year In Review](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56814ad3550346895db7ecb5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
*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.
![Page 9: CEQA: A Year In Review](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56814ad3550346895db7ecb5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 10: CEQA: A Year In Review](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56814ad3550346895db7ecb5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
*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
![Page 11: CEQA: A Year In Review](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56814ad3550346895db7ecb5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
*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
![Page 12: CEQA: A Year In Review](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56814ad3550346895db7ecb5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
*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
![Page 13: CEQA: A Year In Review](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56814ad3550346895db7ecb5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
*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
![Page 14: CEQA: A Year In Review](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56814ad3550346895db7ecb5/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
*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