The courts issued 16 published CEQA decisions in 2022, continuing a trend of fewer published opinions than the pattern established in earlier years. The only California Supreme Court opinion, County of Butte v. Department of...more
In 2018, the CEQA Guideline which defines the term “mitigation” was amended to add “conservation easements” to the list of measures that can provide “compensatory” mitigation for an environmental impact. Guideline §15370(e)....more
A Summary of Published Appellate Opinions Under the California Environmental Quality Act -
The California Supreme Court issued its only CEQA opinion of 2018 at the end of the year. In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, the...more
1/14/2019
/ Air Quality Standards ,
Appeals ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Building Permits ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Carbon Emissions ,
CEQA ,
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ,
Environmental Policies ,
Excessive Noise ,
Exemptions ,
Final Judgment ,
General Plan ,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ,
Historic Preservation ,
Housing Developers ,
Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
Mixed-Use Zoning ,
Oil & Gas ,
Railroads ,
Railways ,
Real Estate Market ,
Regulatory Oversight ,
Res Judicata ,
Risk Mitigation ,
Sierra Club v County of Fresno ,
Standard of Review ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Substantial Evidence Standard ,
Tenants ,
Traffic Impact Assessments ,
Trucking Industry ,
Urban Planning & Development
A court of appeal has ruled that opponents of a new Planned Parenthood clinic did not establish a fair argument that anti-clinic protests might cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, the City of South San...more
12/27/2017
/ Appeals ,
Berkeley Hillside v City of Berkeley ,
Categorical Exemptions ,
CEQA ,
Commercial Real Estate Market ,
Conditional Use Permit ,
Environmental Claims ,
Environmental Policies ,
Planned Parenthood ,
Protests ,
Real Estate Development
In Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District (Supreme Court No. S214061, filed Sept. 19, 2016), the California Supreme Court resolved the vexing question of whether a change to...more
9/29/2016
/ Addendums ,
CA Supreme Court ,
CEQA ,
Colleges ,
Construction Industry ,
Construction Project ,
Educational Institutions ,
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ,
Environmental Policies ,
Real Estate Development ,
Renovations
In 2015 the California appellate courts continued to chart new ground as they grappled with some of CEQA’s most difficult and controversial questions. The Supreme Court of California led the way, issuing four opinions on...more
The California State University system may not condition its funding of mitigation for off-site impacts of a campus expansion project on receipt of a legislative appropriation earmarked for that purpose, according to a...more
The California Supreme Court has issued its long-awaited decision in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, No. S201116 (March 2, 2015). The Court’s decision clears up some of the ambiguity that surrounded the...more
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW -
The published court decisions in 2012 reflected a heightened recognition that CEQA does not require perfection, but rather a reasonable effort to provide environmental information that...more
In an opinion published on March 28, 2013, a California court of appeal answered three questions under the California Environmental Quality Act that the published decisions have not yet addressed...more
In This Issue:
- Project Approvals Triggering CEQA
..Chung v City of Monterey Park (2012) 210 CA4th 394
..Tuolumne Jobs and Small Business Alliance v Superior Court) 210 CA4th 1006 (petition for review pending,...more
1/3/2013
/ Ballot Measures ,
CEQA ,
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ,
Exemptions ,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ,
Groundwater ,
Permits ,
Standing ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Tolling ,
Wal-Mart