In a CEQA case involving a Tejon Ranch project in the Antelope Valley, an appellate court concluded that a land use project is not a "covered entity" under the cap-and-trade law the way an oil refinery is.
The First District Court of Appeal published a ruling that favored the City of Eureka over opponents of an affordable housing project downtown. The city had separated the surplusing of the land from the selection of the affordable housing developer.
Appellate court rules that county can't condition permit completeness on additional environmental information not on the checklist -- but can do so if the checklist is more complete.
Mt. Shasta charter school case shows that subjective design standards still matter and the threshold for an environmental impact report is low -- at least for non-residential projects.
Though the city did include some mitigation measures regarding tribal cultural resources, it did not "conclude" the consultation as required by aB 52, according to an appellate court.
Judge rules that Housing Accountability Act bond requirement applies in dispute over builder's remedy case even though the developer is not the plaintiff in the case.
Overturning a lower court, the California Supreme Court ruled that because the 19th Century "lot" had never been conveyed separately from other "lots" on the parcel, it cannot be viewed as a separate parcel under the Subdivision Map Act.
