Podcast – Introducing the Greenwashing Mitigation Team
The Court of Appeal has held that a party who prevents a condition precedent to their obligation to pay from being met cannot rely on the unfulfilled condition to escape their liability in debt....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
ACK Rat's attempt to kill the Vineyard Wind project came closer to an unsuccessful end this week when Federal Judge Talwani granted a motion for summary judgment against ACK Rat and its founder that will end the case unless...more
A recent decision highlights the importance of strict compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act’s requirement that findings be made every five years concerning unexpended fees. The Sixth District Court of Appeal held that the...more
Employment background checks help employers hire individuals with integrity whom they can trust, and who do not present a risk to the business, other employees, or the customers and clients that the business serves. Buyers in...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
Update: On September 28, 2021, Apotex applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal (Docket No. 39851). On July 23, 2021, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) dismissed Apotex’s appeal of the Federal Court’s (FC)...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
The United States Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit) (“Appellate Court”) addressed in an August 26th Opinion a dispute regarding certain costs associated with a Federal Highway Administration (“FHA”) road design and...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
Vladimirsky v. School Dist. of Phila., 206 A. 3d 1224 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019). The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court overturned a finding of the Pennsylvania Department of Education that teacher did not exercise reasonable due...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
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
On June 16, 2017 – without seeking either rehearing in the First District Court of Appeal or review by the Supreme Court – losing appellants Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity filed a letter asking the Supreme...more
In a 46-page opinion filed February 14 and ordered published on March 15, 2017, the Fourth District Court of Appeal rejected numerous CEQA challenges to Riverside County’s approval of an EIR for Specific Plan 380, a 200-acre...more
On November 7, 2016, the Third District Court of Appeal filed a published opinion mostly upholding the EIR for a 48.75-acre, 328-unit residential infill project (known as McKinley Village) against various CEQA challenges, and...more
On October 12, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied a petition for an en banc rehearing of its September 12 decision in Galaria, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (Nos. 15-3386/3387). In...more
In a published opinion filed August 31, 2016, the Sixth Appellate District Court of Appeal rejected claims under CEQA and the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (“SMARA”; Pub. Resources Code, §§ 2700, et seq.), and affirmed...more
A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a “historical resource” may, for that reason, have a significant effect on the environment for purposes of CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21084.1.)...more
In a decision that enhances the ability of local interests to obtain mitigation funds from state agencies, the California Supreme Court held that the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires the Board of...more