Photo of Andrew M. Skanchy

Andrew M. Skanchy

Subscribe to Andrew M. Skanchy's Posts

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...)

Follow:Read more about Andrew M. SkanchyAndrew M.'s Linkedin Profile

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.

In Robinson v. Superior Court (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1144, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that Southern California Edison (SCE), as an investor-owned public utility, was not required to comply with CEQA in an eminent domain action because SCE was neither a “public agency” under CEQA nor did SCE need approval from a public…

In Committee to Relocate Marilyn v. City of Palm Springs (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 607, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the petition filed by the Committee to Relocate Marilyn (Committee), challenging the determination by the City of Palm Springs (City) to issue a Notice of Exemption (NOE) for an art installation on…

In Save Our Capitol! v. Department of General Services (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 655, the Third District Court of Appeal held that the Department of General Services violated CEQA when certain design changes to the State Capitol renovation (Project) were not revealed until the final EIR (FEIR), preventing the public from commenting on the changes.