|
- Coastal Development Permits -
A trial court erred in concluding that a coastal development permit was required under state law regulations promulgated by the California Coastal Commission where the commission had certified a city’s local coastal program and the local coastal program provisions did not require coastal development permits for improvements to existing structures.
Citizens for South Bay Coastal Access v. City of San Diego - filed Feb. 18, 2020, Fourth District, Div. One
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 679
Full text click here >
- EIR -
An environmental impact report project description should include reasonably foreseeable future activities that are the consequence of project approval; it should address environmental effects of future action, if there is credible and substantial evidence that it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the project, and the future action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope and nature of the project and its environmental effects. The California Environmental Quality Act does not require an EIR to discuss future developments which are unspecified or uncertain. CEQA requires that an EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis in order to provide decisionmakers with sufficient information to enable them to make decisions which take into account environmental consequences.
Environmental Council of Sacramento v. County of Sacramento (Cordova Hills) - filed Jan. 30, 2020, publication ordered March 2, 2020, Third District
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 955
Full text click here >
When determining what is reasonably possible when disclosing information in an environmental impact report, the term must be defined and applied by considering the purpose of preparing an EIR. The reduction of a positive net effect on water supply is an adverse environmental impact. The mitigation measures for a project’s significant impacts to water supplies inappropriately deferred formulation of the measures or delayed the actual implementation of the measures. A finding that a project’s conversion of agricultural land would be mitigated to a less than significant level was not supported by substantial evidence where the finding was based on the use of agricultural conservation easements, which do not actually offset the conversion of farmland. The magnitude of noise increase must be addressed to determine the significance of change in noise levels.
King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern - filed Feb. 25, 2020, Fifth District
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 841
Full text click here >
- Encroachments -
Whether a trespass or nuisance claim for an encroachment is barred by the statute of limitations turns on whether the encroachment is continuing or permanent; for permanent encroachments, the three-year statute of limitations begins to run on the date the encroachment began, and bars all claims brought after its passage; for continuing encroachments, a plaintiff may assert a claim even if the encroachment began outside the limitations period, but is limited to recovering damages incurred in the preceding three-year period. The crucial test of the permanency of a trespass or nuisance is whether the trespass or nuisance can be discontinued or abated.
Madani v. Rabinowitz - filed Feb. 24, 2020, Second District, Div. four
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 800
Full text click here >
- Nonjudicial Foreclosure -
The purchaser of a deed of trust was not entitled to rescission or his purchase where there was no irregularity, unfairness or fraud in the nonjudicial foreclosure notice and sale process itself. Recording of the deed of trust by the trustee is not an irregularity in the notice or procedure of the sale because again, it occurs after the sale has been completed.
Matson v. S.B.S. Trust Deed Network - filed March 5, 2020, Fourth District, Div. One
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 1017
Full text click here >
|