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
Broadly construing Government Code § 65009, which establishes a 90-day limitations period for claims under the Planning and Zoning Law, an appellate court held that approval of an agreement allowing removal of trees...more
On September 28, 2018, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (“Golden Door”) invalidated the County of San Diego’s recommended efficiency metric for analyzing the...more
In Protect Telegraph Hill v. City and County of San Francisco (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 261, the First District Court of Appeal rejected a series of CEQA challenges to San Francisco’s approval of a conditional use permit for the...more
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
As physical signs of California’s $64 billion railroad project come into focus across the State, a potential faceoff with the federal government regarding its jurisdiction over state environmental laws, at least with regard...more
For the second time, a judge has sided with Best Best & Krieger LLP environmental attorneys in a dispute over a freeway infrastructure project in Riverside County. A CEQA challenge to the project was dismissed by a Riverside...more
Why it matters: The 30 day statute of limitations for CEQA challenges was upheld to bar litigation alleging that a project, as constructed, was different from how that project was described in the CEQA document....more
In Citizens for a Green San Mateo v. San Mateo Cnty. Comm. College Dist. et al., No. A137612 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist., June 17, 2014), the First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision and found that a...more
A preexisting management plan intended to minimize environmental effects of recurring facility operations and events is not a “proposed mitigation measure” for purposes of determining whether an event qualifies for a CEQA...more
In an opinion recently ordered published, the First District Court of Appeal extensively reviewed the relevant case law and expressed skepticism that CEQA would operate in reverse to require analysis of potential impacts on a...more
Environmental and Policy Focus: California's New Hydraulic Fracturing Law Cited In Pending CEQA Lawsuit: EnergyWire - Oct 30 -- Earlier this year, the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthworks and...more
We recently reported in our August 20, 2013, newsalert that Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg’s August 6 amendments to SB 731, The CEQA Modernization Act of 2013, continued to stray further from meaningful CEQA...more
In a published opinion filed August 13, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal, Division Five, reversed a trial court judgment that had invalidated the Bay Area Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) adoption of 2010 “CEQA...more
Yesterday, the Court of Appeal for the First District issued its ruling in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. In a win for public agencies, the court held that establishing...more
In a much-anticipated decision filed August 5, 2013, the California Supreme Court held that CEQA requires a lead agency to assess a project’s environmental impacts against an “existing conditions” baseline – and consequently...more
On August 5, 2013, the California Supreme Court issued a split decision in Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, et al. The court held that a lead agency may choose to avoid using an...more
In Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (filed August 5, 2013) (“Neighbors”), a majority of the California Supreme Court justices announced a new rule regarding the baseline agencies may...more
Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (August 5, 2013, S202828) __ Cal.4th __(“Neighbors”). What is the baseline against which environmental impacts are measured? There has been...more
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPTS NEW CEQA APPEAL PROCEDURES - After nearly a year of effort (and after three previous unsuccessful tries by others), San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener crafted a California Environmental...more
The California Supreme Court has both resolved a split in the appellate courts and forged new law on the baselines agencies may use to assess projects’ environmental effects under CEQA. ...more
In a highly anticipated decision published today, the California Supreme Court affirmed that the use of a future baseline for analyzing certain environmental impacts is appropriate when supported by substantial evidence. The...more
After years of study, Marin County adopted an Ordinance in 2011 banning single-use plastic bags and mandating a 5-cent fee on single-use paper bags; the ordinance applies to roughly 40 retailers in the unincorporated county....more
In a victory for public agencies, the California Supreme Court today issued its much-anticipated ruling in Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (August 5, 2013). The Court held that, in...more
In a partially-published opinion filed July 25, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment denying a writ petition with directions that the County of Mendocino prepare and circulate a...more