Your Resource for What's New in CEQA Law and Litigation
In Wendy Robinson v. City and County of San Francisco (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 950, the First District Court of Appeal upheld the City’s approval of T-Mobile’s installation of wireless telecommunication equipment on existing utility poles throughout San Francisco as proper under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The issue raised by appellants (a group of…
In an unpublished decision, Agriculture, Business & Labor Education Coalition of San Luis Obispo County v. County of San Luis Obispo, 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 7948, the Second Appellate District upheld the trial court’s decision that an environmental group did not meet its burden of proof to show the County’s proposed amendments to the…
In Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center v. County of Siskiyou (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 184, Siskiyou County (County) approved a project to expand an existing wood veneer manufacturing facility for the cogeneration of electricity for resale. The Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center and the Weed Concerned Citizens (Plaintiffs) sought a writ of mandate against County claiming…
The U.S.News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” rankings names Thomas Law Group as one of the best law firms in Sacramento in Land Use & Zoning Law and Environmental Law. Only four other law firms in Sacramento were given a “Tier 1” ranking in either Land Use & Zoning Law or Environmental Law. For…
On November 1, 2012, Bloomberg Businessweek published an article about significant CEQA reform that is anticipated to be proposed next legislative session. Thomas Law Group has been working closely with Senator Michael Rubio in regard to the potential reform. Please see the Bloomberg Business week article here: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-01/california-environmental-law-marked-for-biggest-change-since-70
In Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court of Tuolumne County (2012) 2012 Cal.App.LEXIS 1138 (Tuolumne Jobs), the Fifth District Court of Appeal clarified that an effort by registered voters to qualify an initiative petition for the ballot does not foreclose the need for CEQA review unless the voters approve the…
In Chung v. City of Monterey Park, (2012) Cal.App. LEXIS 1097, the Second District Court of Appeal upheld a trial court’s ruling that Measure BB, a City of Monterey Park municipal ballot measure, was not a project subject to CEQA and therefore the measure did not require environmental review before being placed on the…
In Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1091, petitioners challenged the City of Santee’s (City) certification of a final environmental impact report (EIR) for a development project in the City, claiming the project violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in several ways. The trial court found merit in…
In a showing of solidarity with the First District Court of Appeal in its recent ruling in the Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 656 case (currently pending review by the Supreme Court), the Third District Court of Appeal slapped the hand of the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) for increasing…
In Association of Irritated Residents v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012) 686 F.3d 668, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) final decision with regard to California’s Revised State Implementation Plan (SIP) under the Clean Air Act (Act) arbitrary and capricious. The court therefore granted the petition and remanded…
