On-Demand Webinar | The New NEPA Regulations: A Practical Guide to What You Need to Know
Addressing Environmental Issues in Real Estate Development
AB 2243 (Wicks) amended AB 2011 effective January 1, 2025. As explained in our prior legal alert, AB 2011 provides for “by right” streamlined ministerial (i.e., no CEQA) approval of qualifying mixed-income and affordable...more
In April 2021, a developer applied to the City of King City, California (City), for a proposed 18,000-square-foot Grocery Outlet store (Project). The Project site was a former 1.6-acre car sales lot adjacent to Highway 101...more
In People ex rel. Bonta v. County of Lake (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222, the First District Court of Appeal held that the Final EIR (“FEIR”) and associated errata for a proposed mixed-use development project, located in a rural...more
In an important opinion filed October 21, and later ordered published on November 18, 2024 (at the request of the California State Association of Counties and the Rural County Representatives of California), the Sixth...more
D.C. Circuit majority opinion that CEQ regulations constitute ultra vires action should be considered dicta if the decision is allowed to stand. On November 12, 2024, the D.C. Circuit, in a split 2-1 decision in Marin...more
On September 19, 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom approved Assembly Bill (AB) 2243 (Wicks), which amends AB 2011 (Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022), effective January 1, 2025. As explained in our prior legal...more
The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 most notably raised the debt ceiling. But the legislation also made substantive changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), with an eye toward simplifying and streamlining...more
In Sacramentans for Fair Planning v. City of Sacramento (2019) ___ Cal.App. 5th ___, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the City of Sacramento’s use of a sustainable communities environmental assessment (“SCEA”)...more
• Sacramentans for Fair Planning v. City of Sacramento is a case of first impression holding that cities and counties may continue to rely on the streamlined environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act...more
While California’s drought state-of-emergency has been lifted, legal battles aimed at limiting groundwater extractions linger....more
In Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 17 Cal. App.5th 1245 (2017) the court of appeal held a court order that requires partial decertification of an Environmental Impact...more
A draft EIR that studies five very different project alternatives without identifying a preferred alternative violates CEQA by failing to provide the public with a stable project to review, the court of appeal held in Washoe...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
In a short opinion filed May 17, 2017, and belatedly ordered published (for unknown reasons) just six days later, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment granting a writ of mandate that set...more
In recent weeks, California appellate courts issued two decisions regarding California Air Resources Board (CARB) programs implemented under AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, with mixed results. The first decision...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
When public agencies analyze a potential public project, they often need to gain access to private property for surveys, testing, and to otherwise investigate whether a particular property is suitable for a planned project. ...more
In California Building Industry Association (CBIA) v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the California Supreme Court held that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) generally does not require...more
In 2015 the California appellate courts continued to chart new ground as they grappled with some of CEQA’s most difficult and controversial questions. The Supreme Court of California led the way, issuing four opinions on...more
In Paulek v. Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, the California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, held that removal of the protected status from a parcel of land still needs to comply with the...more
CREED-21 v. City of San Diego (2/18/2015, 4th Civil No. D064186) - The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld a CEQA exemption related to the City of San Diego’s approval of a project comprising emergency storm drainage...more
In a lengthy published decision filed February 10, 2015, and addressing consolidated appeals in three related actions, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment rejecting petitioner and appellant...more
In a decision that will likely impact projects all across the state, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District issued its second major CEQA decision of the year, finding that when a project will result in pollutant...more
SPRAWLDEF et al. v. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission et al., (Waste Connections, Inc.) (1st Dist., Div. 1, 4/29/2014, A137619), ___Cal.App.1st, 05/28/2014 In a precedent-setting decision, the...more
Environmental and Policy Focus - New high-speed train route approved despite 'unavoidable' effects in Valley: The Fresno Bee - May 12: The California High-Speed Rail Authority approved a section of rail line from...more