From Permits to Penalties: A Deep Dive Into Coastal Development Law
Navigating Environmental Restrictions on Alternative Project Delivery for Complex Infrastructure Projects
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
In Citizens for a Better Eureka v. City of Eureka (2025) __ Cal. App. 5th __, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment dismissing a CEQA action that challenged an approval for the redevelopment of a City of...more
In an opinion filed May 14, and later ordered published on June 11, 2025, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 3) affirmed a judgment dismissing a CEQA action challenging an approval for a City parking lot...more
The County of San Diego’s thresholds for exempting certain projects from vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis were not supported by substantial evidence showing they were appropriate specifically for the County. Cleveland...more
City of Los Angeles - Expedited and Streamlined Review Process for Community Rebuilding - On March 18, 2025, Mayor Karen Bass issued Revised Emergency Executive Order No. 1 (EO 1) directing the Department of City Planning,...more
In Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. County of San Diego (2025) 109 Cal. App.5th 1257, the Fourth District Court of Appeal invalidated two thresholds of significance adopted by the County of San Diego (“County”) that in...more
On March 14, 2025, the California Court of Appeal for the First District issued the first published opinion interpreting Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), the law governing tribal consultation procedures under the California...more
A California court of appeal has held that a lead agency conducting environmental review, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), of “vehicle miles traveled” (VMT) impacts may not unquestioningly use thresholds...more
In a published opinion filed March 27, 2025, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. 1) reversed the trial court’s judgment denying a writ petition, and held that two screening thresholds of significance for vehicle miles...more
The Court of Appeal held that before issuing a CEQA Class 32 exemption, the City of Los Angeles was required to assess whether the project was consistent not only with the applicable zoning ordinance but also with the area’s...more
A change from heavy regulation of vineyards to a complete ban on new vineyards did not so destabilize the original project description as to amount to a prejudicial abuse of discretion and require a new EIR. Gooden v. County...more
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 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
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
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
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
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 Protect Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin, 70 Cal. App. 5th 951 (2021), the court of appeal upheld a city’s reliance on the infill development categorical exemption under CEQA for a new gas station in an existing shopping...more
A California Court of Appeal held that special legislation providing fast-track judicial review to the Howard Terminal Project did not impose a deadline for the Governor to certify the project for streamlined environmental...more
The Court of Appeal held that a CEQA challenge to a decision approving removal of trees adjacent to PG&E gas pipelines was time-barred because an agreement to toll the statute of limitations did not include PG&E, which was an...more
With Marin County’s Mt. Tamalpais often considered the birthplace of mountain biking, it should not be surprising that the County finds itself at the forefront of California’s battle over multi-use trail access and...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
A court of appeal has rejected Coastal Act and CEQA challenges to the Coastal Commission’s approval of expansions at the San Diego Convention Center. San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. California Coastal Commission,...more
In Sierra Club et al. v. County of Sonoma et al. (2017 WL 1422533), the California First District Court of Appeal held that the issuance of an erosion-control permit by the Agricultural Commissioner of Sonoma County...more