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 certain circumstances would have avoided the need for a project proponent to perform an analysis of vehicle miles travelled.
In the wake of the tragic disaster still unfolding in multiple communities of Southern California, Governor Newsom has issued an executive order (Executive Order N-4-25) intended to “expedite recovery” from the disaster by “eliminating barriers that unduly delay the rapid rebuilding of homes and other facilities destroyed or damages by the extreme windstorm conditions and
In Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Benito (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 22, the Court of Appeal held that the statute of limitations for two CEQA challenges did not begin to run until the Board of Supervisors had heard and decided appeals from the Planning Commission. Because the County of San Benito’s local ordinance
On October 21st, the Second District Court of Appeal published a decision in Santa Clarita Organization etc. v. County of Los Angeles (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1143 that addresses the question of whether a CEQA challenge to an approval of a vesting tentative tract map for a subdivision is subject to the summons requirement under the Subdivision
In Westside Los Angeles Neighbors Network v. City of Los Angeles (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 223, the Second District held that the City of Los Angeles Planning Commission (“Commission”) was a decision-making body authorized to certify the final EIR for the entirety of the Westside Mobility Plan (“Mobility Plan”). The Court found that this authority
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 part of Lake County, failed to adequately assess the increased risk of human-caused wildfires the project created. The
In Yolo Land and Water Defense v. the County of Yolo (2024 105 Cal.App.5th 710, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the County’s EIR for a sand and gravel mine, known as the Teichert Shifler Mining and Reclamation Project. Downey Brand attorneys Andrew Skanchy and Sam Bacal-Graves successfully represented the County in this litigation,
In Save Our Capitol! v. Dept. of Gen Servs. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 828—the third appeal challenging renovations and additions to the State Capitol (Project) under CEQA—the Third District Court of Appeal rejected petitioner’s challenges to the revised EIR for the Project on the grounds that newly enacted Senate Bill No. 174 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) (SB
In Relevant Grp., LLC v. Nourmand (9th Cir. Sep. 5, 2024, No. 23-55574) 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 22559, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed the applicability of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) in addressing abuse of CEQA by business competitors. Despite recognizing that the facts suggested the CEQA suits had been brought
In Sunflower Alliance v. California Department of Conservation (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 771, the First District Court of Appeal held that a project that would turn an existing oil well into an injection well to pump water back into an aquifer (Project) was exempt from CEQA under the Class 1 exemption for minor alterations to an