What is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)?

Useful Rulings on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Recent Rulings on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Plaintiffs’ CEQA claim is likewise deficient. Given the timing of the phasing out of STRs, there is no evidence that that there is any immediate risk of the environment being adversely affected by the Ordinances. See Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 423-24. Stated simply, Plaintiffs’ claims at this time are speculative.

  • Hearing

GREGORY LUCAS VS CITY OF POMONA

The Petition Petitioner Lucas commenced this proceeding on December 24, 2019, alleging a cause of action for violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and seeking the remedy of injunctive relief. The verified Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows. On October 9, 2019, at a public hearing, the City’s Planning Commission considered a recommendation to City Council to approve the Ordinance.

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The Petition Petitioner Lucas commenced this proceeding on December 24, 2019, alleging a cause of action for violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and seeking the remedy of injunctive relief. The verified Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows. On October 9, 2019, at a public hearing, the City’s Planning Commission considered a recommendation to City Council to approve the Ordinance.

  • Hearing

SAVE THE AGOURA CORNELL KNOLL V. CITY OF AGOURA HILLS ET AL

In reaching this conclusion, the court has relied on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market in Los Angeles, including reasonable fees in CEQA and land use actions. The court has also considered the experience, skill, and reputation of Wallraff and Unger (including in prior CEQA actions), the difficulty of this action, and the declaration of Pearl.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

HUDACK VS LA CRESTA PROPERTY OWNERS

The TAC alleges that a judgment rendered by Judge Holmes on 2/22/11 is void because Judge Holmes was acting in an appellate capacity by denying Plaintiff’s motion for costs in the CEQA portion of the underlying action. The complaint by Plaintiff in the underlying action contained a writ claim against the County. A judgment granting a writ was entered on 6/18/07 and signed by Judge Cahraman. (Exhibit F to TAC.)

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The court disagrees CEQA requires more from the EIR as an informational document. Contrary to the Petitioner’s Opening Brief, the EIR is not required to calculate the likelihood of fire from specific human activities and, as noted by Tejon, “[t]he [CEQA] statute does not demand what is not realistically possible given the limitation of time, energy, and funds. ‘Crystal ball’ inquiry is not required.” (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v.

  • Hearing

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Tejon argues this difference of opinion—supported by substantial evidence on the part of the County—does not violate CEQA.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

FIX THE CITY, INC. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

In this California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) petition, Petitioner contends that Respondents did not sufficiently analyze alleged cumulative parking impacts associated with a subway line extension near the Project. Petitioner’s Request to Augment Record In general, “a hearing on a writ of administrative mandamus is conducted solely on the record of the proceedings before the administrative agency.” (Toyota of Visalia, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 872, 881.)

  • Hearing

BEST VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE

The tension between (or perhaps more appropriately, the uncertainty created by) sections 26202 and 26205.1 was raised tangentially in a recent CEQA decision, Golden Door v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 837 ("Golden Door"). In footnote 26 of Justice McConnell's careful opinion, she made clear this issue had not been developed in the trial court, and thus the Court declined to consider it. The court discusses this case further below.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ELFIN FOREST HARMONY GROVE TOWN COUNCIL VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]

The rate does not appear to be overly high for the market rates in the community, especially given petitioners' counsel's years of specialized experience in CEQA and land use matters. Smith Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, 17, Exs. D & E (showing blended rate of $675 and $650 in CEQA action awarded to counsel from Latham and Watkins two years ago). Latham and Watkins is an internationally recognized firm with rates above average and the blended rates were set in 2018.

  • Hearing

SCHMID V. TWO ROCK FIRE DEPT

(ii) The project either qualifies for a CEQA exemption or Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration. (iii) Due to the site's location, the provision of water and wastewater disposal can be accommodated with no significant impact to the environment or surrounding properties. (iv) The project involves a minor expansion on a site that has no active enforcement action.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Gary Nadler via Zoom

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

STOP TOXIC HOUSING IN PASADENA, INC. VS DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, ET AL.

The Petition asserts three causes of action for writ of mandate based on violations of CEQA and the Carpenter-Presley Act. Legal Standard Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding. (CCP § 1032(b).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MDR BOAT CENTRAL LP ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

In particular, the County had made repeated assurances about entering into a new, binding lease option once CEQA requirements were met. (Compl., ¶ 177.) Plaintiffs allege that the County breached the contract “by failing and refusing to negotiate exclusively and in good faith with Plaintiffs over the terms of the new lease option agreement.” (Compl., ¶¶ 178, 189, 200.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SOUTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

In order to assure consistent and adequate water deliveries, the District alleges that in 1984 it entered into two agreements with DFW in order to settle a CEQA lawsuit. It further alleges that those agreements irrevocably entitle it to divert 600 cfs from the Yuba River, and to perform excavation work in or around the Yuba River in order to maintain sufficient flow capacity to divert 600 cfs. 5 (See Compl., ¶¶ 4, 4.3, 16.1.)

  • Hearing

COMMUNITY VENTURE PAR NERS AND MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND This action involved the process by which respondent Marin County Open Space District (the “District”) evaluated and approved certain proposed improvements and the allowance of bicycle use on the Bob Middagh Trail in Mill Valley (the “Project”), Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to set aside the District’s approval of the Project based on a violation of the procedures contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Res.

  • Hearing

PASADENA CIVIC CENTER COALITION VS CITY OF PASADENA

CITY OF PASADENA Case Number: BS164664 Hearing Date: October 30, 2020 [Tentative] ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD [Tentative] ORDER DENYING RELIEF PETITIONER’S CEQA CLAIMS

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CLAYTON FOR RESPONSIBLE DEV. V CITY OF CLAYTON

First, Petitioner claims that the City improperly found the project categorically exempt from preparation of an Environmental Impact Report under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Second, Petitioners claim that the City improperly applied the state housing statute and local ordinance allowing “density bonuses” for projects that provide units for low-income people. The project sits on three lots totaling 3.2 acres at the corner of High Street and Marsh Creek Road.

  • Hearing

PANEK VS. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

Wagner Farms, Inc. v Modesto Irrigation Dist. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 765, at 777-778 (judge properly awarded prevailing defendant its photocopying costs of record of proceedings in CEQA action, which were supported by invoice from copy company, when plaintiffs failed to present any evidence showing that copying could have been done for less). Cal.

  • Hearing

JOHNSON VS FCA US LLC

., it was not a CEQA case, patent law case, complex class action, etc. It was a clear liability lemon law case whose outcome was largely inevitable. Finally, Defendants did not object to Plaintiff's claimed costs of $6,673.23 via a motion to tax costs under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1700(b). The Court accepts the memorandum of costs as representing costs that were reasonable, necessary, and allowable.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JOHNSON VS FCA US LLC

., it was not a CEQA case, patent law case, complex class action, etc. It was a clear liability lemon law case whose outcome was largely inevitable. Finally, Defendants did not object to Plaintiff's claimed costs of $6,673.23 via a motion to tax costs under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1700(b). The Court accepts the memorandum of costs as representing costs that were reasonable, necessary, and allowable.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

Moreover, any future projects have been expressly made contingent upon CEQA compliance... An EIR is not required for an element of a master plan which has not been proposed for development. Where, as here, an EIR carmot provide meaningful information about a speculative future project, deferral of an environmental assessment does not violate CEQA. {Id. at 373)(citations omitted.)

  • Hearing

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

Moreover, any future projects have been expressly made contingent upon CEQA compliance… An EIR is not required for an element of a master plan which has not been proposed for development. Where, as here, an EIR cannot provide meaningful information about a speculative future project, deferral of an environmental assessment does not violate CEQA. (Id. at 373)(citations omitted.)

  • Hearing

YORK POINT VIEW PROPERTIES LLC VS CITY OF RANCO PALOS VERDES

A record is required for traditional mandamus review of quasi-legislative decisions where there are land use issues of zoning, CEQA, general plans, public contracts, or charter schools, or other issues of general application, depending on if the law requires a hearing at which evidence is presented and fact-findings made. See SN Sands Corp. v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ASSEMI BROTHERS, LLC V. WONDEFUL PISTACHIOS AND ALMONDS, LLC

In addition, Wonderful filed a CEQA action to prevent or delay the construction of plaintiffs’ new pistachio processing facility. (Id. at ¶¶ 63 - 65.) Wonderful also tried to interfere with plaintiffs’ plans to purchase another pistachio processing facility in Terra Bella, California. (Id. at ¶ 67.) When plaintiffs launched their new brand, Touchstone, they succeeded in selling part of their crop in the Chinese market. (Id. at ¶ 69.) However, Wonderful zealously guards its position in the Chinese market.

  • Hearing

PROTECT TUSTIN RANCH VS. THE CITY OF TUSTIN

The City did not create an Environmental Impact Report because of its finding that the project qualified for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption from CEQA, the Infill Exemption, and that no exception applied to overcome that exemption.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 27     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.