Blog
- Five Things to Know about Offshore Wind in California This Fall
- New Statutory Requirements if Local Agencies Want to Continue Teleconferenced Public Meetings with Social Distance Modifications
- Fast Track Opportunity for Battery Storage Projects In California
- Keeping the Lights On
- Judicial Counsel Clarifies Emergency Statutes of Limitations for CEQA and Land Use Challenges
- If You Can’t Say Something Nice…
- Governor Approves Online-only CEQA Notice During COVID-19
- Supreme Court Holds Clean Water Act Can Apply To Groundwater
- Welcome Carlyn Drivdahl and Peter Landreth!
- Streamlined CEQA Review of Housing Project at Greater Height and Density than Allowed by Zoning Upheld in Sacramentans for Fair Planning v. City of Sacramento
- New vapor intrusion fact sheet from the San Francisco Bay Regional Board
- Vapor Intrusion in California – Still Up in the Air
- California Supreme Court Declines to Consider Limited Applicability of CEQA to Design Review
- The Governor’s Plan to Convert Vacant State-Owned Lands to Housing Begins to Take Shape
- Welcome Real Estate Partner Janice Kim!
- Design Review of By-Right Development Does Not Trigger CEQA Review
- Fourth District Rejects City’s Retroactive CEQA Baseline but Holds that Error did not Violate Constitutional Rights
- SB 100 and EO B-55-18: California’s New 100% Clean Energy Policy
- California Courts Refine the Limits of Ballot Power in Land Use Decisions
- We’ve Grown!
- OPR Releases List of CEQA Exemptions Not Included Within CEQA
- CEQA Negative Declaration Case – Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa
- Monchamp Meldrum LLP featured in The Recorder
- CEQA Case – Don’t Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego/Verizon Case
- CEQA Case – Rodeo Citizens Association v. County of Contra Costa
- CEQA Case – Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar
- UC Hastings Moot Court
- Court of Appeal Affirms Parking is Not a CEQA Impact for Transit Oriented Development Projects Approved After The Effective Date of SB 743