Richmond Casino Case: How Early Is Too Early for CEQA?

more+
less-

In Parchester Village Neighborhood Council v. City of Richmond, the California Court of Appeal recently held that the City of Richmond’s decision to enter into a Municipal Services Agreement (MSA) with a Native American tribe did not constitute a “project” requiring California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, even though the agreement effectively committed the City to a particular course of action. Parchester helps to define the scope of Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, in which the California Supreme Court held that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) needed to be completed where the city had effectively committed to approving a senior housing development project, even though its agreement with the developer was ostensibly conditioned on compliance with CEQA.

Please see full alert below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Published In: Administrative Agency Updates, General Business Updates, Environmental Updates, Indigenous Peoples Updates, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »