Two important, recurring CEQA questions are answered by a recent court of appeal decision in a case involving the EIR for a California State University campus master plan: whether CEQA requires funding of mitigation for a project’s effects on public services; and whether an adaptive mitigation program for traffic and parking impacts improperly defers decisions

In what is perhaps the most controversial CEQA decision this year, the court of appeal in Berkeley Hillside Preservation invalidated permits for construction of a single-family home, ruling that the project did not qualify under CEQA’s categorical exemption for construction of a single-family residence or its categorical exemption for infill development.  The California Supreme Court

Provisions of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines that purport to require analysis of the effects of environmental hazards on a proposed project have been declared invalid by California’s Second District Court of Appeal.  The court held that such impacts are not encompassed by CEQA, rejecting a claim that an Environmental Impact Report was required

In Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District ruled that in appropriate circumstances, projected future conditions may serve as an appropriate baseline for measuring a project’s impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act. The court disagreed with two controversial decisions from


The California Supreme Court has held that simple common sense — “an important consideration at all levels of CEQA review” — indicated that the City of Manhattan Beach and its retail sector were too small for the City’s ban on plastic bags to cause any significant environmental impact or make any significant cumulative contribution to