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
After deciding in a prior appeal in the same case that offsite agricultural conservation easements (ACEs) were not effective at reducing a project’s conversion of agricultural land, the Fifth Appellate District held that ACEs...more
In an opinion filed on March 29, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal found that a CEQA claim was not mooted by completion of a project to demolish an existing shooting range and to construct a new shooting range...more
In a partially published (but mostly unpublished) opinion filed on March 7, 2024, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment and writ-discharge order which had upheld Kern County’s most recently...more
The Court of Appeal upheld the City’s determination that compensatory mitigation for the loss of a historic building in the form of funding of other historic preservation was not feasible because there were no other buildings...more
The Sixth Appellate District, on May 10, 2023, published a decision in Preservation Action Council of San Jose v. City of San Jose (2023) __ Cal.App.5th __ upholding the City of San Jose’s certification of a final...more
In E. Oakland Stadium Alliance v. City of Oakland (Mar. 30, 2023, No. A166221) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 240], the First District Court of Appeal concluded that the EIR prepared for the proposed Oakland A’s...more
In a lengthy opinion tackling several of CEQA’s hot topics, a court of appeal has rejected the EIR for the Martis Valley West project, finding its Lake Tahoe water quality analysis, GHG and traffic mitigation measures, and...more
In Santa Clara Valley Water District v. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, No. A157127, 2020 WL 7706795 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2020), the court ruled that CEQA does not constrain an agency’s authority to...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
The First District Court of Appeal ruled that CEQA does not constrain an agency’s authority to administer and enforce any other laws, including those authorizing imposition of mitigation requirements. Thus, even after an EIR...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
In a published opinion filed December 29, 2020, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate filed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) challenging waste...more
A Summary of Published Appellate Opinions Involving the California Environmental Quality Act - Despite relatively few published opinions this year, there were significant appellate court rulings on a range of topics,...more
The court of appeal found the EIR for a master planned community sufficient because it adequately described and analyzed impacts of the proposed project, which included a university, and was not required to consider the...more
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal found multiple defects in a Kern County EIR for a proposed ordinance streamlining the permitting process for new oil and gas wells. King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County Kern 45 Cal.App.5th...more
A Summary of Published Appellate Opinions Under the California Environmental Quality Act - The year 2019 saw several trailblazing opinions, indicating that courts continue to grapple with some of CEQA’s core policies. The...more
An EIR that did not squarely respond to detailed comments recommending additional mitigation measures has been held not to comply with CEQA. Covington v. Greater Basin., 3d Dist. Court of Appeal Case No. C080342 (certified...more
The Sierra Club decision affects both the preparation of EIRs and judicial review of agency decisions certifying EIRs. Key Points: ..An environmental impact report’s (EIR) discussion of potential environmental impacts...more
In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (S219783), the California Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that the substantial evidence standard of review does not always apply when a lead agency prepares an environmental impact...more
CEQA Case Report: Understanding the Judicial Landscape for Development - In a published opinion issued December 24, 2018, Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, Case No. S219783, the California Supreme Court determined that an...more
A development project’s potential noise impacts can implicate complex and technical issues under CEQA, particularly where those impacts are asserted, in litigation by project opponents challenging a negative declaration, as...more
On December 22, the Second Appellate District certified for publication its November 30 opinion in Los Angeles Conservancy v. City of West Hollywood, concerning a proposed mixed-use redevelopment of the “Melrose Triangle”...more
In Protect Telegraph Hill v. City and County of San Francisco (Sept. 14, 2017 Slip Opinion A148544, unpublished), the First District Court of Appeal upheld the City of San Francisco's determination that rehabilitation of a...more
Land Use Matters provides information and insights into legal and regulatory developments, primarily at the Los Angeles City and County levels, affecting land use matters, as well as new CEQA appellate decisions. ...more
The California Supreme Court recently addressed an important California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issue: Who decides whether CEQA’s subsequent review provisions are applicable when there are changes to an adopted...more