Keeping You Up-To-Date On The California Environmental Quality Act
Subscribe to Our Newsletter for Email Updates
Starting January 1, 2023, Thomas Law Group will merge with Downey Brand. Our post discussing the First District’s new CEQA opinion, Save North Petaluma River and Wetlands v. City of Petaluma (Nov. 14, 2022, A163192) __Cal.App.4th__ [2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 1009], can be found at Downey Brand’s CEQA Chronicles blog. The new opinion discusses the adequacy of an EIR’s description...
Starting January 1, 2023, Thomas Law Group will merge with Downey Brand. Our post discussing the First District’s new CEQA opinion, Save North Petaluma River and Wetlands v. City of Petaluma (Nov. 14, 2022, A163192) __Cal.App.4th__ [2022 Cal. App. LEXIS...
As you may have heard, Thomas Law Group will merge with Downey Brand effective January 1, 2023. We’ll continue to post updates on important CEQA developments, new case law, legislation, and regulatory guidance, but our new posts will be moving...
Citing the increasing prevalence of wildfires, the California Attorney General (AG) has issued guidance designed to help lead agencies comply with CEQA when considering whether to approve projects in wildfire-prone areas. Although the guidance does not impose any additional requirements...
In G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 814, the Second District Court of Appeal held that the Brown Act (Government Code, § 54950 et seq.) required the City of Thousand Oaks (City) to list consideration of...
In County of Mono v. City of Los Angeles (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 657, the First District Court of Appeal held that a reduction in water deliveries by the City of Los Angeles (City) to lessees in Mono County (County) was not...
Thomas Law Group is pleased to announce that it is merging with Downey Brand, a leading full-service law firm highly regarded for its expertise in natural resources, water, energy, land use, and environmental matters (in addition to litigation and corporate...
This week Governor Newsom signed a series of bills intended to accelerate housing development in California. Two bills – AB 2011 and SB 6 – seek to facilitate residential redevelopment of commercially zoned areas, though they contain stringent requirements that...
In YIMBY v. City of Los Angeles (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2022, No. 21STCP03883), a Los Angeles County trial court decided a number of issues under California housing laws. Though the trial court decision carries neither precedential nor persuasive value,...
In Reznitskiy v. County of Marin (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1016, the First District held that the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5 (HAA), does not apply to a project consisting of one individual residential unit. In unpublished portions of the...
In Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 700, the First District Court of Appeal considered the adequacy of an EIR certified by Marin County (County) for a residential development. The Court rejected a number of arguments...
In Department of Water Resources Environmental Impact Cases (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 556, the Third District Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying motions for attorney’s fees arising out of the voluntary dismissal of coordinated...
In Committee for Sound Water & Land Development v. City of Seaside (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 389, the Sixth District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s finding that a CEQA challenge to a proposal to develop a large “Mixed-Use Urban...