• Skip to main content
  • Home
  • Contact
  • About
  • Search
    • Search US
    • Search Global
  • Global Litigation
  • U.S. Litigation

Community Environmental Advocates v. City of Grass Valley

Filing Date: 2020
Case Categories:
  • State Law Claims
    • State Impact Assessment Laws
Principal Laws:
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Description: Challenge to the environmental review for a mixed-use development on the site of a former mine.
  • Community Environmental Advocates v. City of Grass Valley
    Docket number(s): C094613
    Court/Admin Entity: Cal. Ct. App.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    01/30/2023 Opinion Download Judgment denying the petition for writ of mandate reversed. California Appellate Court Said Greenhouse Gas-Related Claims Were Forfeited in CEQA Challenge to Development on Former Mine Site. The California Court of Appeal found that an environmental impact report (EIR) prepared pursuant to CEQA for a mixed-use development on the site of a former mine had a deficient analysis of air quality. The court rejected challenges to other aspects of the environmental review, including an argument that the EIR should have evaluated the impact on greenhouse gas emissions of traffic generated by the project. The court found that the plaintiffs forfeited this argument by failing to support it with meaningful analysis or record citations. The approved project’s only identified significant and unavoidable impact was related to greenhouse gas emissions, and the court found that the plaintiffs forfeited challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the statement of overriding considerations that explained why it determined the project’s benefits outweighed this unavoidable significant effect.

© 2023 · Sabin Center for Climate Change Law · U.S. Litigation Chart made in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

The materials on this website are intended to provide a general summary of the law and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.