|
- BIA -
Bureau of Indian Affairs does not need to explain its decision not to implement a mitigation measure identified by an environmental impact statement since it had actually followed the command of the mitigation measure. When a wind turbine development is to be built by the same developer in the same general area, but split along a jurisdictional line, it is appropriate to view the phases of development as being part of the same project for purposes of determining if alternative plans were considered.
Protect our Communities v. LaCounte - filed Sept. 23, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-55647
Full text click here >
- CEQA -
The potential loss of close and convenient shopping is not an environmental issue that must be reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act. Challenges to the scope of an environmental impact report’s analysis of a topic, the methodology used for studying an impact, and the reliability or accuracy of the data upon which the EIR relied, present questions of fact; when an agency is faced with conflicting evidence on an issue, it is permitted to give more weight to some of the evidence and to favor the opinions of some experts over others. A decision to approve a project despite its significant environmental effects is a policy decision; the reasons for the agency’s decision must be supported by substantial evidence, but no authority requires that a statement of overriding considerations must describe in detail the weight accorded to the various aspects of the agency’s balancing of competing public objectives.
Chico Advocates for a Responsible Economy v. City of Chico - filed Sept. 5, 2019, publication ordered Oct. 3, 2019, Third District
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2966
Full text click here >
- Leases -
The clear and unambiguous meaning of 30 U.S.C. §1005(a) permits production-based 40-year continuations on geothermal leases at the end of the primary term only on a lease-by-lease basis, not on a unit-wide basis.
Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management - filed Sept. 19, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-15616
Full text click here >
- Set Backs -
The California Coastal Commission did not abuse its discretion by imposing a special condition on a development that required a home to be set back a certain distance from the edge of a bluff to account for potential landslide conditions, erosion and other factors that might affect stability; a requirement that a homeowner waive the right to build a seawall was not an unconstitutional government taking; a condition requiring removal of the home from the parcel if any government agency orders that it not be occupied due to a natural hazard was overbroad and unreasonable since it would still require removal if the danger could be remedied or were only temporary in nature.
Lindstrom v. California Coastal Commission - filed Sept. 19, 2019, Fourth District, Div. One
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2679
Full text click here >
- Tax -
Tax on wholesale liquid fuel storage facility is a real property tax and is impermissible unless it comes under one of the exceptions set forth in Article XIII D of the state Constitution. Guidelines which amend a voter-approved measure are invalid.
Tesoro Logistic Operations, LLC v. City of Rialto - filed Oct. 2, 2019, Fourth District, Div. Two
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2939
Full text click here >
- Waste -
A parent corporation has direct liability for the remediation of a subsidiary’s hazardous waste if it participated in activities specifically related to pollution; it need not have eccentric control over either compliance with regulations for hazardous waste or its disposal if the parent was in control over the activity resulting in pollution.
Atlantic Richfield v. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board - filed Sept. 13, 2019, publication ordered Oct. 15, 2019, Third District
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 3152
Full text click here >
|