Stephen L. Kostka Senior Counsel

Parties commonly enter into agreements tolling the statute of limitations for claims arising under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  However, the validity of such agreements, which some argue have thwarted the public’s interest in prompt resolution of CEQA disputes, has not been certain.  In Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin, the California Court of Appeal made clear that such agreements are valid and enforceable, at least in certain circumstances.

In Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District ruled that, when supported by substantial evidence, projected future conditions may serve as an appropriate baseline for measuring a project's impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act.

The California Supreme Court’s decision in California Redevelopment Association (CRA) v. Matosantos Commercial Corporation (No. S194861) requires redevelopment agencies (RDAs) to wind down immediately.

The California Supreme Court has announced that recently enacted legislation disbanding redevelopment agencies is constitutional, while the companion legislation that would have allowed redevelopment agencies to continue to exist if they made "voluntary" payments is unconstitutional.

In Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Army Corps of Engineers approved a permit under the Clean Water Act (the Act) authorizing the fill of approximately 54 acres of wetlands for the construction of a large town center outside of Tampa, Florida.

California's Second District Court of Appeal has addressed provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) checklist questionnaire that appear to require analysis of the effects of environmental hazards on the proposed project.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal, in Pfeiffer v. Sunnyvale, recently upheld the use of a traffic baseline that included future projects despite an earlier Sixth District case that had raised serious questions about that practice.

In Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the county’s decision to deny a subdivision map for a housing project violated California’s Housing Accountability Act (the Act), also known as the “Anti-NIMBY” law, even though the project did not include any affordable units.

After two-and-a-half years of public review, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) unanimously approved a comprehensive set of amendments to its Bay Plan to address climate change and the resulting sea level rise anticipated to occur in San Francisco Bay.

In recent years, California has enacted numerous laws to encourage solar and infill development. Governor Jerry Brown has now signed Senate Bill 226, which amends the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to further encourage projects designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

California Governor Jerry Brown just signed AB 900, the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011. This bill creates a streamlined litigation process for challenges to environmental impact reports for certain projects that are expected to create jobs and cause relatively few environmental impacts. The bill allows these cases to be heard directly by the court of appeal, on an expedited basis, bypassing the trial court.

In June of this year, the California legislature passed two bills designed to address the state’s budget crisis. The bills addressed redevelopment agencies, which are local agencies created to use property tax funds to redevelop blighted areas. ABX1 26 suspended most redevelopment agencies and provided for their gradual dissolution. It barred redevelopment agencies from taking action other than paying existing debts, performing existing contractual obligations and setting aside reserves required for bonds.

Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach