CEQA Updates, Issues, & Trends

928 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
928
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

CEQA Updates, Issues, & Trends

  1. 1. CEQA 2010: Updates, Issues & Trends<br />June 9, 2010<br />Ron Bass<br />Senior Regulatory Specialist<br />ICF International<br />Margaret Sohagi<br />President<br />The Sohagi Law Group<br />Jonathan Riker<br />Environmental Counsel<br />ICF International<br />
  2. 2. Section 1 Introduction and CEQA Scoreboard<br />
  3. 3. CEQA Scoreboard 2009-2010Case Law<br />Appellate Courts<br />2009 - 21 Published CEQA decisions <br />2010 - 11 Published CEQA decisions<br />California Supreme Court<br /> 4 decisions<br />Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton<br />Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast AQMD<br />Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors<br />Sunset Skyranch Pilots Association v. County of Sacramento <br /> 1 case on review <br />Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach<br />
  4. 4. 2009 Appellate and Supreme Court and DecisionsWon-lost rate by subject<br />Definition of a “project” cases<br />Agency wins 3 / Opponents win 1 <br />Categorical Exemption cases<br />Agency wins 3 / Opponents win 1 <br />ND/MND cases<br />Agency wins 0 / Opponents win 2<br />EIR Adequacy cases<br />Agency wins 7 / Opponents win 0<br />Certified Regulatory Program cases<br />Agency wins 1 / Opponents win 0<br />Procedural cases<br />Agency wins 3 / Opponents win 0<br />Total Agencies 17 - Opponents 4<br />
  5. 5. 2010 Appellate and Supreme Court and DecisionsWon-lost rate by subject<br />Definition of a “project” cases<br />Agency wins 1 / Opponents win 0 <br />Categorical Exemption cases<br />Agency wins 0 / Opponents win 1 <br />ND/MND cases<br />Agency wins 1 / Opponents win 0<br />EIR Adequacy cases<br />Agency wins 1 / Opponents win 3<br />Certified Regulatory Program cases<br />Agency wins 1 / Opponents win 0<br />Procedural cases<br />Agency wins 3 / Opponents win 0<br />Total Agencies 7 - Opponents 4<br />
  6. 6. CEQA Scoreboard 2008Legislative and Regulatory<br />CEQA Legislation (2009) – (effective January 2010)<br />3 CEQA bills signed into law.<br />6 non-CEQA bills which created new Exemptions.<br />No major bills in 2009.<br />OPR <br />CEQA Guidelines amendments addressing greenhouse gas emission under CEQA. <br />
  7. 7. Section 2 Legislative Update<br />
  8. 8. 2009 Legislation<br />3 CEQA bills signed into law<br />6 “non-CEQA” bills created new CEQA exemptions<br />
  9. 9. 2009 Legislation (Cont.)<br />3 Legislative Bills Passed in 2009 Change the Text of CEQA<br />AB 1318 (Perez) <br /> “SCAQMD: Emission Reduction Credits”<br />SB 605 (Ashburn) <br /> “CEQA: Biogas Pipelines”<br />ABX2 8 (Nestande)<br /> “State Government”<br />
  10. 10. AB 1318 (Perez) “SCAQMD: Emission Reduction Credit” (Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(16).)<br />Creates a new statutory CEQA exemption for selection, credit, and transfer of emission credits by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) pursuant to Section 40440.14 of the Health and Safety Code. <br />Expires January 1, 2012, unless extended.<br />
  11. 11. SB 605 (Ashburn) “CEQA: Biogas Pipelines” (Public Resources Code section 21080.23.5.)<br />Adds biogas pipelines to the current statutory CEQA exemption for inspection, repair, removal, or similar work of pipelines shorter than 8 miles. <br />Limited to Fresno, Kern, Kings, and Tulare Counties. <br />Defines “Biogas” as natural gas derived from anaerobic digestion of dairy animal waste that meets the compressed natural gas specifications in Cal. Code Regs., tit. 13, § 2292.5<br />Expires January 1, 2013, unless extended. <br />Provides means of moving biogas from dairies that have been installing methane digesters for manure management. <br />
  12. 12. ABX2 8 (Nestande)“State Government”(Public Resources Code section 21080.42.)<br />Exempts specified transportation projects from CEQA. <br />Creates an ad hoc critical infrastructure permit review panel to convene agencies with jurisdiction over those projects to coordinate their actions on permits.<br />Does not exempt the projects if, on or after February 1, 2009, the lead agency changes the scope of the enumerated projects from the manner in which they are described in the bill.<br />
  13. 13. Other Legislation Creating Exemptions From CEQA<br />
  14. 14. Other Legislation Creating Exemptions From CEQA<br />Several other bills create exemptions to CEQA outside of the text of CEQA<br />ABX2 8 (Nestande) <br />certain surplus real estate transactions<br />ABX4 22 (Evans) <br />certain transactions involving Orange County Fair<br />SB 89 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review)<br />certain tribal issues<br />AB 798 (Nava) <br />certain bonds for toll roads<br />SBX7 7 (Steinberg) <br />certain plans prepared and adopted for water conservation<br />ABX3 81 (Hall) <br />L.A. Stadium in the City of Industry<br />
  15. 15. 2010 Proposed Legislation(selected bills only)<br />
  16. 16. Thank you for viewing our sample presentation!<br />To Enroll: Call (310) 825 - 9971 or go to www.uclaextension.edu<br /> <br />Phone: (310) 825-7885 | Website: www.uclaextension.edu/publicpolicy<br />Blog: www.uclaextensionppp.wordpress.com| Twitter: www.twitter.com/unexpubpol<br />Address: UCLA Extension Public Policy Program, 10995 Le Conte Avenue, Suite 413, Los Angeles, CA 90024<br /> <br />

×