1. Presented By: Lori D. Ballance Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP Prepared For:Assn. of California Airports 2013 Fall Conference

3. * 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).

4. * 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.

5. * 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.”

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- The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, in conjunction with the Council on Environmental Quality, released a draft guidance document titled, “NEPA and CEQA: Integrating State and Federal Environmental Reviews.”

8. * 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.

10. * 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

11. * 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

12. * 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

13. * 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

14. * 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

15. * For more information, contact: Lori D. Ballance lballance@gdandb.com 760.431.9501