Thomas Law Blog

CEQA Updates

Keeping You Up-to-Date on the California Environmental Quality Act


dateJanuary 3rd, 2017 byby

In an unpublished opinion, Fudge v. California Coastal Commission, 2016 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8765, the Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s rulings granting the City of Laguna Beach’s (City) demurrer to several causes of action in a lawsuit challenging actions by the City and Coastal Commission concerning a project proposed by Laguna Beach Golf and Bungalow Village, LLC (Developer) to remodel and expand an existing hotel, dining, retail and golf course facilities on an 84-acre parcel in Aliso Canyon.

On May 14, 2014, the City Planning Commission approved a coastal development permit (CDP), conditional use permit (CUP), and design review permit (DRP) for the project and determined that the project was exempt from CEQA under the Class 3 categorical exemption. On June 16, 2014, Appellant appealed the CDP approval to the Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission approved the CDP on January 8, 2015 and took further actions to approve the CDP on April 15, 2015. Appellant filed the lawsuit on March 5, 2015.

The City and the Developer filed demurrers to three causes of action alleged against the City: the first cause of action alleged a violation of CEQA in connection with the Planning Commission’s determination that the CDP was exempt from CEQA; the third cause of action alleged the City violated the LBMC in connection with the Planning Commission’s approval of the project; and the fourth “cause of action” sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court entered an order granting the demurrers and dismissed the City from the litigation. Appellant appealed from the order.

The Court held the first and third causes of action were time-barred. The Court explained that both causes of action challenged the Planning Commission’s May 2014 approval of the project. Appellant’s challenge of the CDP to the Coastal Commission did not affect the validity of the Notice of Exemption (NOE) issued by the Planning Commission or issuance of the CUP. The 35-day statute of limitations (SOL) under the Public Resources Code section 21167, subdivision (d), was applicable to the first cause of action, and the 90-day SOL under Government Code section 65009 was applicable to the third cause of action. As the lawsuit was filed in March of 2015, it was filed over nine months after the Planning Commission approved the project. As a result, the lawsuit was untimely as to the first and third causes of action.

Lastly, the Court held that Appellant’s fourth cause of action – seeking declaratory and injunctive relief – was barred as a matter of law. The Court reasoned that a petition for writ of mandate under the Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, not declaratory relief, is the sole means to challenge the City’s permit approvals. Further, the Court provided that there is no stand-alone cause of action for injunctive relief, which is an equitable remedy that may only be requested incidental to an independently cognizable cause of action. As the first and third causes of action against the City were time-barred, the fourth cause of action was not incidental to an independently cognizable cause of action against the City.




dateDecember 29th, 2016 byby

In The Committee for Re-Evaluation of the T-Line Loop v. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS ___ (originally filed as an unpublished decision and later certified for publication), the First Appellate District upheld the trial court and rejected Petitioners’ argument that further CEQA review was required before the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (Muni) approved construction of a 900-foot segment of light rail track needed to complete a partially constructed loop on the T-Line.

In 1998, an EIR was prepared to analyze the impacts of the Third Street Light Rail Project. The EIR divided the project into two phases: the Initial Operating Segment, and a New Central Subway. The EIR analyzed the Initial Operating Segment at the project-level and the New Central Subway at the program-level.  The bulk of the Initial Operating Segment was completed by 2003, however, the loop connection at issue in this litigation was deferred until demand warranted its completion.  In 2012, Muni pursued federal grant funding to complete the loop and, as part of that process, it considered whether further CEQA review was required before the loop project was approved. Muni and the San Francisco Planning Department (Department) agreed that the 1998 EIR adequately analyzed impacts of the loop and that no further CEQA review was required.  However, further NEPA review was conducted and a “Finding of No Significant Impact” was issued by the Federal Transit Administration. Once again, in 2014, when Muni was prepared to move forward with the loop project, Muni and the Department considered whether any changed circumstances required further CEQA review.  They again concluded no further review was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162-15164. Thereafter, Muni approved construction of the missing 900-foot link in the T-Line loop.

Petitioners filed suit alleging that the loop project was not covered by the 1998 EIR and that, even if it was, Muni was required to conduct supplemental review pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166. After holding that both of Petitioners’ challenges are subject to the substantial evidence, and not fair argument, standard of review, the Court quickly rejected Petitioners’ arguments.

Citing extensively to the 1998 EIR, the Court held that substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that the loop project was part of the project described in the 1998 EIR. The Court also held that the loop was part of the Initial Operating Segment as defined in the 1998 EIR and not the New Central Subway. Thus, the loop was analyzed at the project-level in the 1998 EIR.  The Court also noted that, to the extent Petitioners desired to challenge the adequacy of the analysis in the 1998 EIR, that challenge is untimely and should have been advanced when the 1998 EIR was adopted.

Next, the Court held that Muni’s and the Department’s 2012 and 2014 determinations, and supporting evidence, that no further review was required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 constituted substantial evidence supporting that conclusion. Furthermore, the Court stated that the 2013 NEPA analysis constituted additional substantial evidence supporting Muni’s decision. The Court was also unpersuaded by Petitioners’ counterarguments noting that “mere delay in completing construction [does not] constitute[] a substantial change in a project under section 21166” and “changes in a neighborhood do not constitute a change in circumstances that requires a new EIR under section 21166, unless the changes require ‘major revisions’ to an existing EIR.”  The neighborhood changes at issue did not require ‘major revisions’ because the 1998 EIR expressly contemplated and analyzed cumulative impacts associated with potential future changes to the neighborhood.

Finally, the Court rejected Petitioners’ claim that Muni failed to comply with required procedures in deciding no further CEQA review was required. The Court stated that “CEQA does not set forth any particular procedure to support an agency’s decision that a new EIR is not required.” Specifically, “CEQA does not require an initial study or public hearing” before an agency concludes no further CEQA review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166.

Key Point:

After a lead agency prepares an EIR for a project, the substantial evidence standard of review is applicable both the lead agency’s decision whether (1) future approvals are within the scope of the previously approved project, and (2) additional CEQA review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166.




dateSeptember 29th, 2016 byby

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) “CEQA Air Quality Guidelines” have been the source of litigation since they were first adopted in 2010. Most recently, courts have grappled with certain thresholds for assessing the health risks of siting new sensitive receptors near existing sources of toxic air contaminants, often referred to as the “Receptor Thresholds.”

In California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, the Supreme Court held that the scope of CEQA did not require lead agencies to consider the effect of the existing environment on a future users of a project unless the project will exacerbate those existing conditions. See The First Appellate District was tasked with determining on remand how that holding affected the Receptor Thresholds adopted by BAAQMD.

In California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist., 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 758, the appellate court considered BAAQMD’s argument that approval of the receptor thresholds did not need to be set aside because there were possible valid uses.  These uses included: (1) voluntary applications by a lead agency; (2) the determination of whether a project will exacerbate existing conditions; (3) the assessment of the health risks to students and staff at a proposed school site; and (4) the evaluation of whether a housing project is exempt from CEQA.

The Court agreed with BAAQMD, but cautioned that “any effort by an agency to require an EIR, mitigating measures, or other CEQA review under the Receptor Thresholds when one is not authorized would be subject to a strong legal challenge.” The Court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to issue an order invalidating the portions of the BAAQMD Guidelines that suggested that lead agencies should routinely assess the effect of existing environmental considerations on future users or occupants of a project.

BAAQMD subsequently filed a petition for rehearing and argued that writ relief was inappropriate because the Guidelines are a nonbinding, advisory document and any review was premature because there was no specific controversy regarding an application of the Guidelines. (See California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist., 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 752.) The Court disagreed and found BAAQMD’s Guidelines to be akin to the guidelines at issue in Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Commission (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158. They were not “interim steps in a larger review process,” where a court may decline to use the remedy of mandamus. Therefore, the Court denied the petition for rehearing.




dateSeptember 28th, 2016 byby

The City of Ceres approved the development of a 300,000 sq. ft. shopping center anchored by a 190,000 sq. ft. Wal-Mart Supercenter to replace an existing Wal-Mart store after an extensive environmental review process. Citizens for Ceres (Citizens) filed a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to CEQA, alleging several defects in the environmental documents the City certified when it approved the project. The trial court denied the petition and Citizens appealed.

After prevailing in the trial court Wal-Mart, as the real party in interest, filed a memorandum of costs in which it requested, among other things, an award against Citizens of $48,889.71 for the cost of preparing the administrative record. Wal-Mart incurred these costs because the City required Wal-Mart to reimburse the City’s costs to have outside counsel prepare the record. The trial court struck this item from Wal-Mart’s memorandum of costs and Wal-Mart filed a separate appeal.

In a partially published opinion, Citizens for Ceres v. City of Ceres, 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 759, the Fifth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s denial of Citizens’ petition for writ of mandate, and reversed as to Wal-Mart’s appeal on the cost of preparing the administrative record.

In the unpublished portion of the opinion, the Court rejected Citizens’ CEQA claims that: (1) the EIR certified by the city did not mandate adequate mitigation measures for the urban decay impact of the project; (2) the EIR did not sufficiently analyze the project’s impacts on landfill and recycling facilities and did not mandate adequate mitigation measures for those impacts; (3) the EIR failed to contain adequate information correlating the project’s air pollution impacts with resulting effects on human health; and (4) the City’s statement of overriding considerations was not supported by substantial evidence.

The Court then addressed Citizens’ motion to tax costs. Wal-Mart argued that the trial court erred when it applied Hayward Area Planning v. City of Hayward (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 176 (Hayward) to bar an award of costs to Wal-Mart for preparation of the administrative record. The Court agreed, explaining that Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 states that a prevailing party is “entitled” to a cost award “as a matter of right” in “any action or proceeding,” except “as otherwise expressly provided by statute.” While Public Resources Code section 21167.6 requires an agreement with the petitioner before an agency can delegate record preparation to a real party, as stated in Hayward, the Court held that an agreement with the petitioner was not required where a real party covers an agency’s costs after the record has been prepared by the agency.

Key Point: Prevailing real parties in interest in CEQA matters may recover costs associated with the preparation of an administrative record where it reimburses an agency’s costs after the record has been prepared by the agency.




dateSeptember 27th, 2016 byby

Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (S.B.) 32, which will extend the State’s greenhouse gas targets from 2020 to 2030. The legislation builds on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which required California to reduce greenhouse gas levels to 1990-era levels by 2020. Under S.B. 32, the State will be required to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

S.B. 32 codifies the interim 2030 greenhouse gas target included in the Executive Order (B-30-15) issued by Governor Brown on April 29, 2015. The interim target is intended to ensure California meets its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.  The Assembly passed the bill with only one vote to spare during a largely party-line vote.

Notably, to help garner the required votes, S.B. 32 was amended to provide that it would only become operative if A.B. 197 was also enacted. A.B. 197, which was passed by the Legislature by a much less narrow vote than S.B. 32, increases legislative oversight of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) by putting two legislators on CARB as nonvoting members and requiring CARB to report annually to a newly created joint legislative committee on climate change policies. It also directs CARB to prioritize emissions rules and regulations that limit economic impact on the State’s disadvantaged communities and regions reliant on agriculture.  S.B. 32 and A.B. 197 were approved by Governor Brown on September 8, 2016, and will become effective on January 1, 2017.




dateSeptember 7th, 2016 byby

In Defenders of Wildlife v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109509, the Northern District of California refused to preliminarily enjoin Panoche Valley Solar (PVS) from constructing a 247-megawatt solar facility comprised of approximately 1,529 acres of photovoltaic panels installed on a 2,154-acre site in the Panoche Valley in San Benito County.

The Panoche Valley is home to a variety of endangered species, such as the blunt-nosed leopard lizard, the San Joaquin kit fox, and the giant kangaroo rat.  Each of these species has been in decline due to loss of habitat or fragmentation of existing habitat.  The giant kangaroo rat, for example, survives in less than five percent of its historic geographic range.

In early 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a biological opinion (BO) under the Endangered Species Act, concluding that the project would not likely jeopardize the survival and recovery of any of the species identified above.  Accordingly, FWS issued an incidental take statement, which authorized limited take of the listed species during the project construction, operation, and maintenance for the life of the project.

While the BO acknowledged that the solar facility would permanently impact 1,688 acres of habitat and temporarily impact 466 acres of habitat, such impacts were minimized by conditions to reduce the anticipated take.  Conditions included designing the project to avoid areas with high densities of listed species, monitoring construction work by FWS-approved biologists, relocating species to nearby habitat, and preserving and managing conservation land for the species covered by the incidental take statement.

Based on the BO, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a Section 404 permit pursuant to the Clean Water Act, authorizing PVS to discharge dredged or fill material into 0.121 acres of waters of the United States.

Both the BO and the Section 404 permit were challenged in federal court by the Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. After finding it was unlikely that plaintiffs would succeed on the merits, the Court denied their request for a preliminary injunction. This decision allows PVS to rely on the BO and Section 404 permit while the matter is litigated.




dateSeptember 1st, 2016 byby

In Imperial County, just north of the Mexican border, lies the Imperial Sand Dunes Planning Area, a 227,000-acre tract of desert, of which 214,930 acres is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This swath of land is home to the Algodones Dunes, the largest active sand dune system in the United States. A 138,111-acre portion of the Planning Area, designated as the Imperial Sand Dunes Special Recreation Management Area (Dunes), is set aside for the protection of plants and wildlife, as well as for outdoor recreation. The Dunes attract over one million visitors annually, especially off-road vehicle enthusiasts. In Center for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Management, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14949, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed BLM’s proposal to expand access for off-road vehicle recreation in the Dunes (Proposal).

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) contended that the plain language of the Endangered Species Act requires an Incidental Take Statement for threatened plants, rather than just fish and wildlife. In reviewing an agency’s interpretation of a statute it is charged with administering, the Court applied the two-step statute interpretation framework set forth in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984) 467 U.S. 837 (Chevron): (1) whether Congress has spoken on the issue in the statute; and (2) if the statute is ambiguous with respect to the issue, whether the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. The Court determined that the Endangered Species Act on its face does not require Biological Opinions to contain Incidental Take Statements for threatened or endangered plants.  The Court did not proceed to the second step of the Chevron test, but it noted that its reading of the Endangered Species Act was consistent with the USFWS’ longstanding interpretation of the Incidental Take provision.

CBD also claimed that BLM’s conclusion that implementation of its Proposal would not increase ozone emissions was arbitrary and capricious and violated the Clean Air Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Specifically, CBD took issue with BLM’s assumptions regarding the number of individuals who will visit the Dunes and how an average visitor will spend their time. The Court noted that BLM’s assumptions were entitled to deference so long as they are supported by “substantial evidence,” and found that the administrative record demonstrated that BLM “considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made.” Accordingly, the Court concluded that CBD had failed to demonstrate that BLM’s emissions analysis was arbitrary and capricious under this deferential standard.

Key Point: The Endangered Species Act does not require an Incidental Take Statement for threatened or endangered plants.




dateAugust 26th, 2016 byby

BoDean Company, Inc. (“BoDean”) operates an asphalt plant in the City of Santa Rosa. The plant is a vested and legal nonconforming use that has been in continuous operation since approximately 1953. In November 2011, BoDean proposed to install three new storage silos, ancillary conveyors, three batchers, and an air filtration system. The upgrade would have no effect on the plant’s production or production capacity due to physical limitations and a condition contained in a permit issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Although proposed upgrades would not increase the plant’s production capacity, the new silos would increase the plant’s capacity to store asphalt.

The City of Santa Rosa approved a minor conditional use permit for the improvements to the asphalt plant and filed a notice of exemption reflecting its findings that the project is exempt from CEQA under the Class 1 (existing facilities) and Class 2 (replacement or reconstruction) categorical exemptions. Petitioner Citizens for Safe Neighbors (“Citizens”) sought a writ of mandate directing the City to set aside its approval of the project for failure to comply with CEQA. In Citizens for Safe Neighborhoods v. City of Santa Rosa, 2016 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6100, an unpublished opinion, Division Three of the First Appellate District upheld the trial court’s denial of Citizens’ petition for writ of mandate.

The court first reviewed the applicability of the Class 1 categorical exemption and found that there was substantial evidence in the record that the new silos constituted a negligible expansion of the plant’s facilities. In light of its conclusion that the project falls within the scope of the Class 1 exemption for existing facilities, the court indicated it was unnecessary to consider whether the project also qualified for a Class 2 exemption.

The court then turned to Citizens’ contention that the unusual circumstances exception precluded the use of a categorical exemption. The court applied last year’s Supreme Court decision Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086 (Berkeley Hillside), which articulated the two-step analysis for determining whether the unusual circumstances exception to a categorical exemption applies to a project. The first step is to determine whether the project exhibits any unusual circumstances; an inquiry reviewed under the substantial evidence standard of review. The second step is to consider whether an unusual circumstance, if present, gives rise to a potentially significant environmental impact; an inquiry reviewed under the fair argument standard of review.

Assuming that the plant improvements presented an unusual circumstance due to its location in close proximity to residences, the court focused its analysis on the second step – whether unusual circumstances give rise to a potentially significant impact. The court concluded that the record did not contain substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the plant upgrades would increase production. Accordingly, the court rejected Citizens’ arguments that plant improvements would result in significant environmental impact on aesthetics, air quality, health & safety, noise, odor, and traffic. The court found Citizens had not met its burden to establish the applicability of the unusual circumstances exception and the project was categorically exempt from CEQA as a minor alteration to existing facilities.




dateAugust 22nd, 2016 byby

On August 17, 2016, the Supreme Court ordered People for Proper Planning v. City of Palm Springs (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 640 depublished.

Since the Supreme Court issued Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, five decisions have been published concerning application of the “unusual circumstances” exception set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2, subdivision (c).

In three of the decisions, the courts upheld the lead agency’s use of the categorical exemptions at issue: (1) Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 943, (2) Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State ex rel. 14th Dist. Ag. Assn. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 555, and (3) Walters v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809.

In the other two decisions, the courts determined that the lead agency failed to comply with CEQA in relying on the categorical exemptions at issue: (1) Paulek v. Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (2015) 238 Cal. App. 4th 583, and (2) People for Proper Planning.  The Supreme Court has now depublished both of these decisions.  Therefore, petitioners have not prevailed in any published opinion concerning application of the unusual circumstances exception to CEQA’s categorical exemptions since publication of Berkeley Hillside. (But see Save Our Schools v. Barstow Unified School Dist. Bd. of Education (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 128 [holding that a proposed school project failed to meet the factual requirements to qualify for the Class 14 categorical exemption].)

Our law firm previously posted two blog entries on the People for Proper Planning.  For a discussion of the original People for Proper Planning opinion, please see The Fourth District later modified its opinion, as discussed at




dateAugust 22nd, 2016 byby

In 2013, the City of San Jose proposed a project to demolish the Willow Glen Railroad Trestle (Trestle) and replace it with a new steel truss pedestrian bridge that would present less of a fire hazard and have a lower maintenance cost. The pedestrian bridge would service the City’s trail system. The Trestle was built in 1922, but according to two experts, the design was based on standard plans, parts of the Trestle were likely replaced during the last 30 to 40 years, and it was not associated with any important events or persons. Based on these reports, the City found that the Trestle was not an “historical resources” and therefore the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, the City adopted a mitigated negative declaration under CEQA.

Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle challenged the City’s approval of the project and argued that there was a fair argument that the Trestle was an historical resource. The trial court agreed and ordered the City to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR). In a published decision, Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle v. City of San Jose, 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 676, the Sixth Appellate District determined that the correct standard of review is substantial evidence, not fair argument.

The crux of the opinion concerns the interpretation of Public Resources Code section 21084.1, which states that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it “may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource.” A resource may be presumed to be historically or culturally significant if it is: (1) listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) included in a local register of historical resources; or (3) deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1. Even if a resource does not meet one of the above three standards, a lead agency is not precluded from “determining whether the resource may be an historical resource for purposes of this section.” This has been called the “discretionary” category of historical resources by the courts. In this case, the parties agreed that only the discretionary category could apply to the Trestle.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21084.1, when a resource is presumed to be historically significant, a lead agency may still find that the resource is not historical if that decision is supported by “the preponderance of the evidence.” The Court held that this language necessarily establishes that the correct standard of review for a presumptively historical resource is substantial evidence. The Court then concluded that it would be inconceivable that the agency’s decision under the “discretionary” category would be subject to a less deferential standard of review than its decision regarding a resource that is presumed historical. This conclusion is supported by CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, subdivision (a)(3) and two other appellate cases—Valley Advocates v. City of Fresno (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1039 and Citizens for Restoration of L Street v. City of Fresno (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 340.  Thus, the Court concluded the trial court applied the wrong standard of review; the City’s conclusion that the Trestle is not historic is subject to the substantial evidence, and not the fair argument, standard of review.  The Court remanded for the trial court to apply the correct standard of review.

A remand to resolve additional substantive matters in CEQA litigation can take several years, particularly if a new appeal is filed after the remand. In enacting CEQA, the Legislature urged that CEQA review be completed “in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical, and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (f).)  In certain circumstances, the Legislature also directed that “any court” reviewing a CEQA challenge “specifically address each of the alleged grounds for noncompliance” raised by a petitioner. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21005, subd. (c).)  Therefore, controlling statutes allow appellate courts to fully resolve the merits of a CEQA challenge.  By exercising such discretion courts can achieve CEQA’s objective to provide for expedited judicial review.

Key Point: The lead agency’s determination under section 21084.1 that a resource is or is not historical is subject to the substantial evidence standard of review.