Latest Posts › Appeals

Share:

Responsible Agency Under CEQA Must Make Express Findings as to Each Potentially Significant Impact Identified in Lead Agency’s EIR

The Court of Appeal held that the City of Mount Shasta violated CEQA by approving a wastewater permit for a water bottling plant without making specific findings as to each potentially significant impact identified as...more

Claims Against State Board and Regional Water Boards for Failure to Protect Against Agricultural Water Pollution Were Not Subject...

The court of appeal held that, in an action against the State Water Resources Control Board and regional water quality control boards for violations of the State Board’s Nonpoint Source (NPS) Policy and the public trust...more

State Density Bonus Law Does Not Require Applicants to Demonstrate Economic Feasibility of Project When Requesting Incentives

A Court of Appeal held that the state’s density bonus law (Gov’t Code § 65915) does not require applicants to submit financial information to support requests for incentives or waivers and preempted a city ordinance that...more

Certification of Howard Terminal Project for Streamlined CEQA Review Under AB 734 Was Not Subject to AB 900 Deadlines

A California Court of Appeal held that special legislation providing fast-track judicial review to the Howard Terminal Project did not impose a deadline for the Governor to certify the project for streamlined environmental...more

4 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide