The Sixth District Court of Appeal held that the undefined terms “in-fill development” and “substantially surrounded by urban uses” in the CEQA exemption for in-fill development were not limited by the definitions of similar...more
The Third District Court of Appeal held that it was proper to award respondents costs for the preparation of CEQA administrative record documents as the prevailing party, even though petitioners had elected to prepare the...more
A Court of Appeal held that the CEQA statute of limitations period does not begin to run after the filing of an initial notice of determination if the project is appealed. Central for Biological Diversity v. County of San...more
The Third District Court of Appeal upheld the Department of Water Resources’ EIR concerning State Water Project contract amendments against multiple CEQA challenges related to impact analysis, project descriptions, and...more
An environmental impact report need not discuss impacts that are too speculative in nature for proper evaluation or assess economic costs not linked to a physical change in the environment. County of Butte v. Dept. of Water...more
7/17/2023
/ Administrative Record ,
California ,
CEQA ,
Climate Change ,
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ,
Environmental Litigation ,
Environmental Policies ,
OEHHA ,
State and Local Government ,
State Water Project ,
Water
The Court of Appeal upheld the City’s determination that compensatory mitigation for the loss of a historic building in the form of funding of other historic preservation was not feasible because there were no other buildings...more
A local organization appealed the denial of its challenge to the approval of an affordable housing project and disputed the trial court’s order requiring it to post a bond. The Court of Appeal rejected plaintiff’s contentions...more
4/3/2023
/ Affordable Housing ,
Appeals ,
Appellate Courts ,
Cal Code of Civil Procedure ,
CEQA ,
Construction Project ,
Delay Claims ,
Housing Market ,
Land Developers ,
Multi-Family Development ,
Real Estate Development ,
State and Local Government
The Court of Appeal found that a development project that was consistent with a previously approved specific plan was not required to prepare a new EIR because no changes significantly increased impacts on endangered species....more