Some jurisdictions in which Perkins Coie LLP practices law may require that this communication be designated as Advertising Materials.
Perkins Coie LLP | January 2015
PerkinsCoie.com/ 1
When Does CEQA Appl y?
4
Exemptions fr om CEQA
5
Negative Declarations
8
Environmenta l Impact Reports
11
Certified Regulatory Programs
21
Supplemental CEQA Review
22
CEQA Litigation
23
New Legislation
28
CEQA YEAR IN REVIEW 2014
A SUMMARY OF PUBLISH
ED APPELLATE OPINIONS AND LEGISLATION UNDER CEQA
By Kathryn Bilder, Christopher Chou, Marie Coope r, Julie Jones, Alan Murphy, Barbara Schussman, Ned
Washburn and Laura Zagar
In 2014, courts, regulators and public agencies continued to
struggle with the relationship
between CEQA and California’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Courts of
appeal held that San Diego County’s regional transportation plan, sustainable communities
strategy and climate action plan all violated CEQA
, concluding that public decisionmakers
had not done enough to analyze and mitigate GHG impacts from vehicles. Another court
held that EIRs must provide detailed discussion of a proposed project’s energy use. And
under the mandate of Senate Bill 743, the
Office of Planning and Research proposed
sweeping CEQA Guidelines changes that would shift the focus of CEQA transportation
analysis from traffic congestion to reduction of vehicle GHG emissions.
The year also saw a surprising conflict in decisions rega
rding the analysis of impacts to
agricultural resources, with one court reaffirming a lead agency’s ability to identify its own
significance thresholds and another court taking a much more hands
-on approach.
Turning to mitigation for impacts to agricultur
al land, a third court confirmed earlier cases
holding that CEQA does not require agricultural conservation easements as mitigation.
Court decisions tackling the nuts
-and-bolts operation of CEQA were equally interesting.
During the year four appellate
courts discussed the functions and uses of program EIRs
versus project EIRs; these cases may help lay to rest persistent misconceptions about
program EIRs. One court addressed the circumstances under which a city commission
can approve a CEQA document. Another delved, with uncertain results, into the distinction
between a proposed project element and a mitigation measure.
The California Supreme Court issued only one CEQA decision in 2014. The court held
that CEQA compliance is not required where a city c
ouncil is presented with an initiative
measure and a short Elections Code deadline to either adopt or reject it.
Finally, the Legislature’s key contribution in 2014 was Assembly Bill 52, which adds tribal
cultural resources to the categories of cultural
resources in CEQA, provides for tribal
consultation, and requires lead agencies to consider mitigation measures for impacts to
tribal cultural r esources.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Some jurisdictions in which Perkins Coie LLP practices law may require that this communication be designated as Advertising Materials.
Perkins Coie LLP | January 2015
PerkinsCoie.com/ 2
LIST OF CASES
California Supreme Court
Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court
,
59 Cal. 4th 1029 (2014)
............................................................................................................................................................. 4
Courts of Appeal
California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland,
225 Cal. App. 4th 173 (3rd Dist. 2014)
..................................................................................................................................... 20
Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (North Gualala Water Company)
No. A138914 (First Dis
trict, Dec. 30, 2014) .............................................................................................................................. 21
Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose,
227 Cal. App. 4th 788 (6th Dist. 2014)
..................................................................................................................................... 22
Citizens for a Green San Mateo v. San Mateo Community College Dist.,
226 Cal. App. 4th 1572 (1st Dist. 2014)
................................................................................................................................... 27
Citizens for a Susta
inable Treasure Island v. City and County of
San Francisco,
227 Cal. App. 4th 1036 (1st Dist. 2014) ........................................................................................................... 15
Citizens for the Restoration of L Street v. City of Fresno
229 Cal. App. 4th 340 (5th Dist. 2014)
...................................................................................................................................... 8
Citizens Opposing A Dangerous Environment
v. County of Kern,
228 Cal. App. 4th 360 (5th Dist. 2014)
..................................................................................................................................... 13
Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments,
231 Cal. App. 4th 1056 (4th Dist. 2014)
................................................................................................................................... 11
Coalition for Adequate Review et al. v. City and County of San Francisco
,
229 Cal. App. 4th 1043 (1st Dist. 2014)
................................................................................................................................... 24
Friends of the Kings River v. County of Fresno
,
232 Cal. App. 4th 105 (5th Dist. 2014)
..................................................................................................................................... 17
Lotus v. Department of Transportation
,
223 Cal. App. 4th 645 (1st Dist. 2014)
..................................................................................................................................... 16
North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westland
s Water Distric t,
227 Cal. App. 4th 832 (5th Dist. 2014)
...................................................................................................................................... 7
Paulek v California Department of Water Resources
,
231 Cal. App. 4th 35 (4th Dist. 2014)
....................................................................................................................................... 19
Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Brown,
229 Cal. App. 4th 1416 (3rd Dist. 2014)
.................................................................................................................................... 5
Protect Agri
cultural Land v. Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation,
223 Cal. App. 4th 550 (5th Dist. 2014)
..................................................................................................................................... 24
