The California Supreme Court, on June 6, 2024, reversed the First District Court of Appeal’s decision regarding UC Berkeley’s Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) EIR. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision clears the way for...more
7/26/2024
/ CA Supreme Court ,
California ,
CEQA ,
Colleges ,
Construction Project ,
Educational Institutions ,
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ,
Excessive Noise ,
Housing Developers ,
Mootness ,
Student Housing ,
Universities
The Sixth District Court of Appeal, in Santa Rita Union School District v. City of Salinas (2023), 94 Cal.App.5th 298, reversed the lower court, finding that the City of Salinas’ (“City”) final programmatic environmental...more
In Lucas v. City of Pomona (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 508, the Second District of the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision that the City of Pomona’s (“City”) application of the statutory exemption under CEQA...more
The California Supreme Court, on May 17, 2023, granted review of the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 656, where the Court of...more
Governor Gavin Newsom announced proposed major new infrastructure permitting reforms on May 19, 2023 in an effort to create thousands of jobs and build California’s clean energy future. The eleven-bill package seeks to...more
6/15/2023
/ Administrative Record ,
California ,
CEQA ,
CEQA Reform ,
Clean Energy ,
Endangered Species Act (ESA) ,
Energy Projects ,
Energy Sector ,
Environmental Review ,
Governor Newsom ,
Infrastructure ,
Permits ,
Utilities Sector
In Pacific Palisades Residents Association, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles et al. (March 8, 2023, Case No. B306658) __ Cal.App.2d __, the Second District issued a strong opinion affirming the trial court’s ruling that a proposed...more
In IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine et al. (Feb. 6 2023, Case No. G060850) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the City of Irvine (“City”) violated CEQA when it...more
In Jenkins et al. v. Brandt-Hawley et al. (1st Dist., Div. 2, 2022) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, the First District Court of Appeal found that CEQA suits can be subject to malicious prosecution actions. The Court of Appeal upheld an...more
In Citizens’ Committee to Complete the Refuge v. City of Newark (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 460, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling that a residential project in a specific plan area in the city of...more
In August 2021, the First District Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Pacific Merchant Shipping Association v. Newsom, where the court held that Public Resources Code section 21168.6.7 does not impose on the Governor a...more
On June 30, 2021, in Save Lafayette Trees, et. al v. East Bay Regional Park District (Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Real Party in Interest), the First District Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a CEQA claim as...more
In June 2021, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the County of El Dorado’s (“County”) mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) for a bridge construction project against complaints that the project’s construction would...more
In Stop Syar Expansion v. County of Napa (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 444, the First District Court of Appeal upheld Napa County’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the expansion of Syar Industries, Inc.’s aggregate mining...more
On May 20, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 7, known as the Housing and Jobs Expansion and Extensions Act, which extends expedited California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) judicial review...more
In an opinion filed on December 29, 2020, the First Appellate District in Santa Clara Valley Water District v. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board upheld a Responsible Agency’s imposition of additional...more
In an opinion published on August 17, 2020, the Third Appellate District in Martis Camp Community Association v. County of Placer ruled that Placer County had violated CEQA by adopting an addendum to support abandonment of a...more
Last month, the Second Appellate District upheld the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“Air District”) Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), which the Air District prepared to analyze the environmental impacts of...more
On April 23, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-54-20 (the “Order”) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which eased procedural legal requirements as to a variety of types of civil actions, including CEQA cases. ...more
The Third District Court of Appeals recently weighed in on the interpretation of Public Resources Code section 21099(b)(2) (“Section 21099(b)(2)”) and newly enacted CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, which govern the...more
California Courts of Appeal recently issued two cases addressing the strict statute of limitations applicable to agency action under CEQA.
Citizens for a Responsible Caltrans Decision v. Department of Transportation – ...more
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the state and several local jurisdictions have issued orders/rules in the last few weeks that affect not only the timing of processing land use and planning entitlements, but also the...more
On Tuesday, February 25, 2020, the Fifth Appellate District invalidated Kern County’s 2015 Oil and Gas Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), which was intended to streamline the permitting process for a variety of oil and gas...more
3/13/2020
/ Appeals ,
CEQA ,
Energy Sector ,
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ,
Local Ordinance ,
Oil & Gas ,
Petition for Writ of Mandate ,
Pipelines ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Zoning Laws
Every CEQA analysis begins with the threshold question of whether the activity is a “project” as defined by Public Resources Code section 21065 and 21080. In Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego, the...more
8/24/2019
/ CA Supreme Court ,
CEQA ,
Dispensaries ,
Environmental Liability ,
Environmental Policies ,
Marijuana ,
Marijuana Related Businesses ,
Medical Marijuana ,
Popular ,
Remand ,
State and Local Government ,
Zoning Laws
On December 18, 2018, the First Appellate District, in McCorkle v. St. Helena (A153238), affirmed the trial court’s denial of a Petition for Writ of Mandate challenging the City of St. Helena’s approval of a multi-dwelling...more
In a long-awaited decision, on December 24, 2018 the California Supreme Court in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (S219783) affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s decision concerning a...more
1/2/2019
/ Air Quality Standards ,
Appeals ,
CA Supreme Court ,
CEQA ,
De Novo Standard of Review ,
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ,
Judicial Review ,
Public Health ,
Question of Law ,
Real Estate Development ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Risk Mitigation