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
A Court of Appeal held that the CEQA statute of limitations period does not begin to run after the filing of an initial notice of determination if the project is appealed. Central for Biological Diversity v. County of San...more
The Third District Court of Appeal upheld the Department of Water Resources’ EIR concerning State Water Project contract amendments against multiple CEQA challenges related to impact analysis, project descriptions, and...more
California took a significant step in streamlining the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process with the passage of SB 149, a law that allows the California Governor to certify certain infrastructure projects for...more
The Second District Court of Appeal confirmed again that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) favors finality in rejecting a challenge to a subsequent project approval for a 42-single family home project in Los...more
Despite repeated attempts at reform by the Legislature, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) continues to be a minefield for those assigned with the herculean task of complying with the law’s myriad of directives....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 City of San Clemente v. Department of Transportation (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1131, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a homeowner’s association (Association), who challenged a proposed state highway extension...more
The trial court improperly retained jurisdiction of a CEQA challenge after the City of San Diego filed a return to the peremptory writ of mandate confirming that it had rescinded the project approvals and thereby satisfied...more
An environmental impact report need not discuss impacts that are too speculative in nature for proper evaluation or assess economic costs not linked to a physical change in the environment. County of Butte v. Dept. of Water...more
On June 13, 2023, the Second Appellate District affirmed the City of Pomona’s use of a statutory exemption for its Commercial Cannabis Overlay Permit Program under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines...more
In a lengthy published decision, the Court of Appeal upheld the City of Oakland’s environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed Oakland A’s MLB stadium and mixed use project, rejecting numerous challenges and affirming...more
In the unpublished decision Los Angeles Waterkeeper v. State Water Resources Control Board, the Second District of the California Court of Appeal considered whether the State and Regional Water Boards have an obligation under...more
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
Introduction: Defining Interprofessional Consultation In a January 5, 2023, letter to state health officials, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) clarified a Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program...more
The Ninth Circuit held that statutory language defining the scope of operations of Twitchell Dam was sufficiently broad to potentially include releases of water to facilitate migration of Southern California Steelhead to the...more
This is a selection of significant environmental and regulatory law cases decided by the federal courts after the Supreme Court’s 2021 Term concluded....more
On April 20, 2022, the Third District Court of Appeal filed its opinion in We Advocate Through Environmental Review v. County of Siskiyou (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 683, reversing the trial court’s judgment upholding the County’s...more
On May 11, 2022, the Third District Court of Appeal published its opinion in We Advocate Through Environmental Review v. City of Mount Shasta (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 629, reversing the decision below and ordering the trial...more
CEQA Case Report: Understanding the Judicial Landscape for Development - Public agencies prevailed in 71% of CEQA cases analyzed. Latham & Watkins is pleased to present its fifth annual CEQA Case Report. Throughout...more
The court held that the County of Marin did not abdicate its duties under CEQA when it approved a specific project pursuant to a stipulated judgment. Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin, 78 Cal. App. 5th 700...more
The EIR for a bottling plant in Siskiyou County withstood challenges to the project description and impacts analysis, but the EIR’s stated project objectives were unreasonably narrow and the County should have recirculated...more
In Citizens’ Committee to Complete the Refuge et al. v. City of Newark et al., the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 4) found the California Environmental Quality Act did not require subsequent or supplemental...more
The State Water Resources Control Board’s registrations of small water diversions are ministerial projects and hence exempt from CEQA. As such, allegedly erroneous registrations cannot be challenged under CEQA. Mission Peak...more
In the first reported interpretation of a 2021 amendment to CEQA’s statute of limitations provisions, the First District Court of Appeal addressed “whether an action against a lead agency must be dismissed–despite being filed...more
The City of San Diego’s approval of underground utility lines was incomplete because its Climate Action Plan checklist improperly allowed certain non-occupancy projects to avoid greenhouse gas emission (GHG) consistency...more