CEQA Strikes Again: Supreme Court of California Decision Highlights the Importance of Managing Environmental Issues in Project Development

03 December 2015 Renewable Energy Outlook Blog
Author(s): Sarah A. Slack Amanda K. Beggs

On Monday, the California Supreme Court halted a nearly 12,000 acre mixed-use development project that was 15-years in the making in Los Angeles County, and had earned both state and local agency support.  The reason?  The Court cited a number of environmental issues with the proposed development as the basis for its decision.  Although the project in question was not an energy-specific project, the decision is an important reminder of the significant effect environmental issues have in project design and development.  This decision also demonstrates the need for project developers to fully consider environmental issues at all stages of project planning, and to appreciate the roll that environmental groups can play in challenging projects.

The opinion interprets the requirements and provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), specifically addressing: (1) the standards for finding that a project would not significantly impact the environment, and (2) appropriate measures for mitigating a project’s impacts to the environment.

The court found that under CEQA, the lead agency, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”), did not adequately address the cumulative impacts of the project’s greenhouse gas emissions when it found that the the project would not significantly impact the environment.  The Court agreed with CDFW’s methodology for determining the project’s air emissions impacts on a state-wide basis, but disagreed with CDFW’s decision that the emissions would not be significant.

Additionally, the Court found that the mitigation measures for certain special-status species violated CEQA.  Specifically, the project would impact the unarmored threespine stickleback fish—a California fully protected species.  The project called for the capture and relocation of the fish to mitigate the project’s adverse impacts.  The Court noted that California law prohibits the “taking” of any fully protected species, which includes pursuing, catching or capturing the species.  In this instance the Court found that the capture and relocation of the unarmored threespine stickleback fish constituted an unlawful “taking,” disagreeing with CDFW’s position that the capture and relocation was just a mitigation measure that was protective of the species.

Ultimately, this decision barred a large-scale development that had already been in the planning process for more than 15 years and that had garnered the support of both state and local agencies.  No matter the scope or type of project, developers need to consider and address environmental issues throughout the entire project development process, and should be thoughtful and aware of  the role environmental groups can play in challenging projects.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services