Navigating Environmental Restrictions on Alternative Project Delivery for Complex Infrastructure Projects
On-Demand Webinar | Charting a Course for Offshore Wind Energy in California
[WEBINAR] Update on the California Environmental Quality Act: What’s New for 2018
[WEBINAR] Building a Solar Energy Project in 2018
How Trump's Infrastructure Plan Impacts the Energy Industry
BB&K's Charity Schiller Discusses CEQA Baseline
On October 21st, the Second District Court of Appeal published a decision in Santa Clarita Organization etc. v. County of Los Angeles (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1143 that addresses the question of whether a CEQA challenge to an...more
On January 12, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-4-25 suspending the application of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Coastal Act (Coastal Act) for projects to...more
On January 12, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued an Executive Order in furtherance of his January 7 State of Emergency declaration to expedite recovery efforts following the devastating fires in Los Angeles and...more
In response to Southern California’s widespread fire devastation and concerns about how bureaucratic red tape might adversely impede recovery efforts, the Governor’s Office has issued an executive order to streamline the...more
In California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition v. State Air Resources Board, 105 Cal. App. 5th 304 (2024), the court upheld the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation (“Regulation”), holding that the California Air Resources Board did...more
In Westside Los Angeles Neighbors Network v. City of Los Angeles (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 223, the Second District held that the City of Los Angeles Planning Commission (“Commission”) was a decision-making body authorized to...more
A change from heavy regulation of vineyards to a complete ban on new vineyards did not so destabilize the original project description as to amount to a prejudicial abuse of discretion and require a new EIR. Gooden v. County...more
The Sixth District Court of Appeal held that the undefined terms “in-fill development” and “substantially surrounded by urban uses” in the CEQA exemption for in-fill development were not limited by the definitions of similar...more
On November 22, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal’s (Div. 4) partially-published opinion in People of the State of California ex rel. Bonta v. County of Lake (Lotusland Investment Holdings, Inc., et al. Real Parties in...more
A California Court of Appeal upheld the California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division’s determination that a project to convert a plugged oil well into a wastewater disposal well fit within the...more
In an important opinion filed October 21, and later ordered published on November 18, 2024 (at the request of the California State Association of Counties and the Rural County Representatives of California), the Sixth...more
In a partially published opinion filed October 31, 2024, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 1) held, in light of AB 1307 and the Supreme Court’s decision in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of...more
The court upheld a mitigated negative declaration for a parcel delivery warehouse project, finding, among other things, that the threshold of significance and baseline used in preparing the MND were supported by substantial...more
In Save Our Capitol! v. Dept. of Gen Servs. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 828—the third appeal challenging renovations and additions to the State Capitol (Project) under CEQA—the Third District Court of Appeal rejected petitioner’s...more
Welcome to “CEQA News You Can Use,” a quarterly production of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP’s Natural Resources lawyers. This publication provides quick, useful bites of CEQA news, which we hope can be a resource to...more
In a published opinion filed October 21, 2024, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 7) reversed a judgment entered after the trial court granted without leave a real party developer’s motion for judgment on the...more
Lawyers, like all humans, experience the full gamut of life’s difficulties. Sometimes those intrude into the practice of law itself, up to and including CEQA litigation. On September 26, 2024, the First District Court of...more
The California Legislature has continued to refine the Density Bonus Law over the years, making important updates to housing laws that impact developers across the state. Recent legislative changes include key updates on...more
Assembly Bill 98 imposes stringent design requirements applicable to new and expanded warehouse development as soon as January 1, 2026....more
In its decision in Upland Community First v. City of Upland, the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the development of a warehouse and parcel delivery service building against a...more
Litigation abuse is all too familiar to those engaged in the herculean task of getting new development approved in California. See, for instance, Jennifer Hernandez’s 2022 report for the Center for Jobs & the Economy, titled...more
“Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.” – Dylan Thomas. In a published decision filed October 7, 2024, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment...more
On Thursday, Sept. 19, Gov. Newsom signed a package of housing bills designed to address the housing crisis affecting California. Below is a brief summary of key bills....more
On September 19, 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom approved Assembly Bill (AB) 1893 (Wicks), which significantly modifies the “Builder’s Remedy” under the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5 et seq.) (HAA),...more
On September 19, 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom approved Assembly Bill (AB) 2243 (Wicks), which amends AB 2011 (Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022), effective January 1, 2025. As explained in our prior legal...more