Photo of Andrew M. Skanchy

Andrew Skanchy helps clients get projects done. Although the permitting process can be confusing and daunting, Andrew has extensive experience navigating clients through the morass and helping them achieve their objectives.

He provides strategic guidance on entitlement considerations and getting a project through the CEQA and NEPA processes, with a primary goal of avoiding litigation. But, should litigation ensue, Andrew is adept at defending project approvals in both federal and state court, having successfully defended public agencies and private developers when their projects are challenged. (Read more...)

In Move Eden Housing v. City of Livermore (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 263, the First District Court of Appeal overturned the trial court and held that the City of Livermore (City) City Clerk was required to process a referendum challenging the decision by the City to enter into a development agreement (Project) with Eden Housing, Inc.

In Koi Nation of Northern California v. City of Clearlake, the Lake County Superior Court (in a judgment dated December 22, 2023) upheld the City of Clearlake’s (“City”) determination, under the substantial evidence standard, that resources not listed on a historic register failed to qualify as tribal cultural resources (“TCR”). The Court also held

In Guerrero et al v. City of  Los Angeles (January 17, 2024, No. B326033 c/w B327032) ___Cal.App.5th___,  the Second District Court of Appeal held that the project opponents did not timely file their CEQA lawsuit. The published opinion reverses a trial court decision that had found the lawsuit to be timely and concluded that environmental

In Yes In My Back Yard v. City of Culver City (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1103, the Second District Court of Appeal (“Court”) held that the City of Culver City (“City”) violated Government Code section 66300 (“Section 66300”)—a part of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, also known as SB 330 (“SB 330”)—when it adopted

In Tsakopoulos Investments v. County of Sacramento (2023) 95 Cal. App. 5th 280, the Third District Court of Appeal (“Court”) upheld the County of Sacramento’s (“County”) certification of the Mather South Community Master Plan (the “Master Plan” or “Project”) environmental impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In the published portion

In California Construction and Industrial Materials Association v. County of Ventura (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1, the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association and the Ventura County Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business separately and unsuccessfully petitioned for writs of mandate to require the County of Ventura to vacate an ordinance creating a wildlife migration corridor. The

The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Historic Architecture Alliance v. City of Laguna Beach (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 186, found that the City of Laguna Beach’s (“City”) findings for the use of the Class 31 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption to approve the renovation and extension of a historic single-family home (“Project”), and

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 alignment and a CEQA settlement that required the highway to avoid sensitive areas, was not entitled to attorney’s fees under the “private attorney

In McCann v. City of San Diego (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 284 (McCann II), the Fourth District Court of Appeal held the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to discharge a writ of mandate.  The writ was issued for the failure to analyze whether a set of projects approved through a mitigated negative

The Second District of the Court of Appeal on June 8 ordered publication of its May 12 opinion affirming the denial of a writ of mandate that challenged the City of Buenaventura’s removal and relocation of a statue of Junipero Serra. Petitioner, the Coalition for Historical Integrity, alleged that removing the statue required CEQA review because it was a historical resource. The Court of Appeal upheld the City’s finding that the statue was not a historical resource and exempt from CEQA under the “common sense” exemption.