On April 20, 2022, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) adopted updated CEQA thresholds of significance that it recommends for public agencies’ use in evaluating the impacts of land use projects and plans...more
On September 9, 2016, the First District Court of Appeal (Division 5) filed an “Order Modifying Opinion and Denying Rehearing [No Change In Judgment]” in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality...more
In a March 4, 2016 published opinion, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment requiring an EIR for a small 12-home rural subdivision project based on the “psychological and social” impacts of...more
In a unanimous 24-page opinion authored by newly seated Justice Cuellar and filed December 17, 2015, the California Supreme Court resolved a fundamental issue regarding CEQA’s scope, holding that – with certain specific...more
On August 11, 2015, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a 145-page “Preliminary Discussion Draft” of “Proposed Updates to the CEQA Guidelines” (the “Discussion Draft”). The Discussion Draft “contains...more
9/21/2015
/ Bay Area Air Quality Management District ,
CA Supreme Court ,
California Building Industry Association (CBIA) ,
CEQA ,
Compliance ,
Construction Industry ,
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ,
Federal Contractors ,
High-Speed Rail ,
High-Speed Rail Authority ,
Sierra Club ,
Standard of Review ,
Threshold Requirements ,
University of California
On April 16, 2014, Miller Starr Regalia filed in the California Supreme Court a “neutral” amici brief – one in support of neither party – addressing the important “CEQA-in-reverse” issue presented in California Building...more