The First District Court of Appeal’s recent published opinion in Thacker v. City of Fairfield, 113 Cal. App.

The Ninth Circuit held that the Forest Service’s substantial reduction of a forest thinning project between the Draft and Final EAs did not require repeating the public comment process or considering new alternatives under NEPA. However, it found the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to adequately analyze cumulative impacts in conjunction with a related project.

A Court of Appeal held that a provision in the County of Amador’s checklist for an encroachment permit requiring "[o]ther information as may be required" violated the Permit Streamlining Act. Old Golden Oaks LLC v. County of Amador, 111 Cal.App.5th 794 (2025).

The Court of Appeal held upheld the dismissal of a CEQA action for failure to timely name a developer that became a real party in interest during the pendency of the action. Citizens for a Better Eureka v. City of Eureka, 111 Cal.App.5th 1114 (2025).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the United States Department of Agriculture did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act in approving a predator management program for certain wilderness areas in Nevada.  Wildearth Guardians v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 135 F.4th 717 (9th Cir. 2025). 

The Ninth Circuit held that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to explain in its Record of Decision why it selected a project alternative that did not meet the development standard that it used to eliminate other alternatives.

Under the Subdivision Map Act, the creation of legal parcels prior to 1972 requires more than a deed referencing multiple lots—only a conveyance that separates a portion of land from contiguous property creates a new legal parcel. Cox v. City of Oakland, 17 Cal.5th 362 (2025).

The County of San Diego’s thresholds for exempting certain projects from vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis were not supported by substantial evidence showing they were appropriate specifically for the County. Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. County of San Diego, No. D083555 (4th Dist., Apr. 28, 2025).

The Court of Appeal held that petitioners challenging a city’s sewer and trash fees were not required to pay fees under protest or otherwise exhaust administrative remedies. Carachure v. City of Azusa, 110 Cal.App.5th 776 (2025).

The California Public Utilities Commission did not abuse its discretion in issuing a Phase I driverless AV deployment permit to Waymo to operate fared passenger service in San Francisco and parts of San Mateo County.

In Western States Petroleum Association v. California Air Resources Board, 108 Cal. App. 5th 938 (2025), the Court of Appeal upheld CARB’s Control Measure for Ocean-Going Vessels at Berth, rejecting arguments that the regulation was technologically infeasible, inadequately supported by evidence, or improperly evaluated under CEQA. 

The Court of Appeal held that the San Diego Unified Port District’s lease of public trust lands to a private yacht club was a discretionary act not subject to traditional mandamus, and that petitioner’s claim for administrative mandamus was barred by the 90-day statute of limitations. Herron v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 109 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2025)

The Court of Appeal held that before issuing a CEQA Class 32 exemption, the City of Los Angeles was required to assess whether the project was consistent not only with the applicable zoning ordinance but also with the area’s redevelopment plan. West Adams Heritage Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 106 Cal. App. 5th 395 (2024).

In California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition v. State Air Resources Board, 105 Cal. App. 5th 304 (2024), the court upheld the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation (“Regulation”), holding that the California Air Resources Board did not violate CEQA or the Administrative Procedure Act when it rejected the California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition’s proposal for a low-NOx vehicle alternative.

A change from heavy regulation of vineyards to a complete ban on new vineyards did not so destabilize the original project description as to amount to a prejudicial abuse of discretion and require a new EIR. Gooden v. County of Los Angeles, 106 Cal.App.5th 1 (2024).