Welcome to CEQA News You Can Use, a quarterly production of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP’s Natural Resources lawyers. This publication provides quick, useful bites of CEQA news, which we hope can be a resource to your real-time business decisions. That said, it is not and cannot be construed to be legal advice. Enjoy!
Legislative update on CEQA bills
Three of the bills highlighted in the last CEQA News (AB 1907, SB 621 and SB 1302) are not moving forward this year (a risk of an early year legislative update!), while SB 950 was reintroduced as SB 55 (D-Jackson), and would substantially revise CEQA practice if it passes. Still pending are several CEQA exemption bills, a number of housing bills, and two bills that would revise CEQA litigation procedures. AB 2323 clarifies CEQA exemptions for projects consistent with a specific plan, certain housing projects, and infill projects. SB 288 would exempt certain transportation projects from CEQA, including transit improvement projects that increase passenger or commuter service, zero-emission vehicle fueling/charging stations, and bicycling infrastructure. SB 902 would enable a lead agency to pass an ordinance allowing up to 10 units of residential per parcel in transit- and job-rich areas, and would make that ordinance exempt from CEQA. SB 1120 would make approval of up to two residential units a ministerial action, therefore not subject to CEQA. SB 1385 would allow residential use on any lot zoned commercial or office use, and SB 1085 would modify the density bonus law for affordable housing, including removing environmental impacts as a reason why a lead agency could refuse to waive or reduce development standards. SB 995 would extend and modify the AB 900 environmental leadership project program for another five years. Finally, AB 3279 would revise certain CEQA litigation procedures, including but not limited to only allowing a petitioner to prepare the administrative record at the request of the lead agency, requiring courts to hold a CEQA hearing within 270 days, and limiting briefing to 60 days unless otherwise stipulated by the parties.
Streambed Alteration Agreement does not trigger supplemental CEQA review
Is a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) a “further discretionary approval,” triggering supplemental environmental review under CEQA? Not according to the Sixth District Court of Appeal in Willow Glen Trestle Conservancy v. City of San Jose, in which the court rejected the petitioner and appellant’s claim that the city lead agency triggered CEQA by seeking a new SAA for a project approved in 2014 after the original SAA had expired. The city’s SAA application was not an “approval for the project.” Rather, in submitting the statutorily required notification to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the lead agency “was simply implementing the project that had already been approved in 2014.” Likewise, the city’s acceptance of the SAA was not a project approval, “but simply another step in the implementation of the already approved project.” The only new “approval” associated with the SAA was CDFW’s, which the petitioner and appellant had not challenged.
Appellate court says “Knoll” to city’s use of MND for mixed use project
In Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 665, the Second District Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision that the City of Agoura Hills could not rely on a mitigated negative declaration (MND) for a mixed use development on an undeveloped 8.2 acre parcel. Save Agoura Cornell Knoll (STACK) filed suit alleging...
