Presented By: Lori D. Ballance Gatzke Dillon & Ballance

LLPPrepared For: Assn. of California Airports

2013 Fall Conference

*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).

*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.

*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.”

*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- The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, in conjunction with the Council on Environmental Quality, released a draft guidance document titled, “NEPA and CEQA: Integrating State and Federal Environmental Reviews.”

*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.

*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

*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

*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

*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

*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

*For more information, contact:Lori D. Ballancelballance@gdandb.com760.431.9501