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 Resources, 90 Cal.App.5th
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 in the downtown areas
The First District Court of Appeal held that a single deed conveying four or fewer contiguous lots can qualify for a presumption of legality under section 66412.6(a) of the Subdivision Map Act so long as the lots are separately described
Contribution claims brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) are not barred by prior environmental litigation if the property at issue and types of claims brought are distinct from previous claims. GP Vincent III v. Estate
The Ninth Circuit upheld the Federal Aviation Administration’s decision to study only the project and the no action alternative in an EIS for a new passenger terminal. However, the court found the FAA violated NEPA by failing to account for
Remodeled residential units converted from space long dedicated to residential use are not considered new construction and are not exempt from local rent control under the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. NCR Properties, LLC v. City of Berkeley, No. A163003 (1st
Plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies when challenging the City’s approval of a homeowner’s development project on the ground that a Class 1 categorical exemption was inapplicable. Arcadians for Environmental Preservation v. City of Arcadia, 88 Cal. App. 5th 418
The City of Irvine violated CEQA by approving a development project based on an addendum to a program EIR containing insufficient information regarding the project’s greenhouse gas emissions and by relying on CEQA’s Class 32 infill exemption, which was inapplicable
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 on the merits and
A trial court had jurisdiction to find that a denial of a permit application violated the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) on remand, even though the Court of Appeal did not expressly instruct the trial court to address the HAA issue.