Published Cases


Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act

Tina is Co-Author of the Guide to CEQA. The first Edition was published in 1987 and the Guide is updated from time to time, most recently the Eleventh Edition, published in 2006. Published by Solano Press, approximately 3,000 copies of the Guide are sold annually. In addition, the Guide is used for teaching purposes at numerous workshops on CEQA.

California Land Use

Co-authored chapters on the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act, 1984.

Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB) Land Use Forum;

Volume 1, Number 1/Fall 1991 – “CEQA Challenges Face A New Level of Scrutiny”

Volume 1, Number 2/Winter 1992 – “When Environmental Impacts May Be Regional, Courts Insist On Broad Scope of Analysis in EIRs”

Volume 1, Number 3/Spring 1992 – “Trial Court Rules That `Extended Summary’ of EIR, Public Notices, and Public Hearing Testimony Must Be Translated Into Spanish for Kings County Project”

Volume 1, Number 5/Fall 1992 – “Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma Court of Appeal Holds That `Fair Argument’ Standard of Review Applies to Decisions About ‘Second-Tier’ EIRs for Certain Site-Specific Projects”

Volume 2, Number 1/Winter 1993 – “Court of Appeal Holds That Trial Court Could Have Considered Evidence Outside Administrative Record in an Ordinary Mandamus Proceeding”

Volume 2, Number 2/Spring 1993 – “In CEQA `Compliance Proceeding,’ Lack of Adversity Between Parties Does Not Compel to Discharge Writ”

Volume 2, Number 2/Spring 1993 – “In Defense of CEQA”

Volume 2, Number 3/Summer 1993 – “Court of Appeal Rejects Argument That Potential Social Impacts (Increase in Crime) Are Physical Changes in the Environment Under CEQA”

Volume 2, Number 4/Fall 1993 – “Federal Courts’ Extraterritorial Application of NEPA”

Volume 3, Number 1/Winter 1994 – “Legislature Authorizes Master Environmental Impact Reports To Reduce Redundant Environmental Review”

Volume 3, Number 2/Spring 1994 – “Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v Regents of University of California, The Supreme Court Recently Announced Its Rule Defining When Recirculation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report is Required”

Volume 3, Number 4/Fall 1994 – “State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Must Conform to Provisions of CEQA From Which it Is Not Specifically Exempted”

Volume 4, Number 2/Spring 1995 – “Evidence From Outside Administrative Record Cannot Be Admitted in CEQA Challenge to Quasi-Legislative Decision”

Volume 4, Number 4/Fall 1995 – “Absence of Supporting Evidence for Each Initial Study Conclusion in Either Initial Study or Record of Proceedings May Enlarge Scope of Fair Argument on Whether EIR Should Be Prepared in First Instance”

Volume 5, Number 2/Spring 1996 – “California Policy Seminar Releases Comprehensive Evaluation of CEQA”