Much is discussed every year in the Legislature about how the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) needs reform. But the calls for change nearly always fail, aside from a few tinkering changes. This year is different. Via some deft political maneuvering to bypass the typical roadblocks to reform, major changes to CEQA have been enacted
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 Eureka (City) parking lot into affordable housing (Project). The Court affirmed the dismissal because Petitioner
This year, over fifty bills were introduced in the Legislature that directly addressed a CEQA issue. Many died in committee, or failed to make it out of their respective houses. The vast majority of those that advanced sought project-specific exemptions. For instance, there were multiple bills to exempt wildfire fuel reduction projects from CEQA review.
On May 29, 2025, in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado (2025) 605 U.S. ____, the Supreme Court gave instruction that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) “is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock,” and that NEPA’s goal “is to inform agency decisionmaking, not to paralyze it.”
Specifically, the Court overturned the
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 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.
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 Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale (2024) 16 Cal.5th 643 (“Meinhardt”), the California Supreme Court resolved a split in authorities over a procedural matter that will give CEQA litigants some certainty about when an appeal must be filed.
When a party loses their case in a California superior court they are entitled to
On March 29, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal issued its partially published opinion in the case of Vichy Springs Resort, Inc. v. City of Ukiah (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 46. In the published portion of the case, the Court held that the completion of a project to reconstruct a gun range (“Project”)