What is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)?

Useful Resources for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Recent Rulings on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

226-250 of 695 results

CITY OF BARSTOW VS CITY OF ADELANTO

Restrict New Production on Fallowed Land (Anonymous): As previously discussed, new production that requires discretionary approval by a public entity would have to be mitigated under CEQA by the appropriate body. Clear Plant Growth From Alto Transition Zone (Anonymous): The court requests comment from the Department of Fish and Wildlife as to whether plant life in the area is restricting water flow to Centro and Baja.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2019

FRIENDS OF THE GREEN BRIDGE VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

(Complaint 1“] 2-3,) The bridge is the subject of a proposed construction project to be performed by Caltrans and also part of a separate California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) lawsuit between the parties in Marin Superior Court Case No.

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2019

DAVIS V. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. ET AL.

Contending that this action is moot and should be dismissed, FUSD relies primarily on Wilson, a reverse validation action including a CEQA challenge to a retail-cinema project. Although the challenge went to trial in 2004, final arguments were not held until 2007, by which time the project was substantially completed. The appellate court held that a project's completion moots requests to set aside or rescind resolutions authorizing a challenged project.

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Enforcement

ARROYO SECO FOUNDATION ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

CEQA The purpose of CEQA (Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq.), is to maintain a quality environment for the people of California both now and in the future. Pub. Res. Code §21000(a). “[T]he overriding purpose of CEQA is to ensure that agencies regulating activities that may affect the quality of the environment give primary consideration to preventing environmental damage.” Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors, (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 117.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITIZENS FOR POSITIVE GROWTH & PRESERVATION VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Does CEQA require Respondent to include in the EIR an analysis of the specific regulatory character of the three-street area and how removal of said restrictions would affect the environmental impacts analysis, if at all?

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2019

CITIZENS FOR POSITIVE GROWTH & PRESERVATION VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Does CEQA require Respondent to include in the EIR an analysis of the specific regulatory character of the three-street area and how removal of said restrictions would affect the environmental impacts analysis, if at all?

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2019

SAVE OUR MISSION-SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO VS CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

City of San Juan Capistrano, Case No. 30-2018-00986220-CU-VM-CXC ("Related Action"), and alleges new conduct in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"), including, but not limited to, the conduct described in paragraph 18 of this petition/complaint. 2019 Petition at p.2, lines 6-10 (emphasis added).

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2019

AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

The FAP assert causes of action for (1) violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); (2) violations of Planning and Zoning Law (“PZL”) and Community Redevelopment Law (“CRL”) requirements; (3) violations of the CRL for failure to provide sufficient affordable housing in the Hollywood Redevelopment Area; (4) writ of mandate to compel compliance with the CRL; and (5) declaratory relief. The FAP alleges in pertinent part as follows.

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE VS. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

Petitioners allege that in approving the two agreements, DWR has violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Delta Reform Act, and the public trust doctrine. Petitioners seek to set aside and vacate approval of the two agreements and restrain DWR from taking certain action to implement the agreements. Westlands is a California water district with vested contractual rights to water from the CVP. (See Declaration of Russ Freeman (Freeman Decl.), ¶6.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2019

NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE VS. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

Petitioners allege that in approving the two agreements, DWR has violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Delta Reform Act, and the public trust doctrine. Petitioners seek to set aside and vacate approval of the two agreements and restrain DWR from taking certain action to implement the agreements. Westlands is a California water district with vested contractual rights to water from the CVP. (See Declaration of Russ Freeman (Freeman Decl.), ¶6.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2019

NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE VS. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

Petitioners allege that in approving the two agreements, DWR has violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Delta Reform Act, and the public trust doctrine. Petitioners seek to set aside and vacate approval of the two agreements and restrain DWR from taking certain action to implement the agreements. Westlands is a California water district with vested contractual rights to water from the CVP. (See Declaration of Russ Freeman (Freeman Decl.), 116.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2019

NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE VS. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

Petitioners allege that in approving the two agreements, DWR has violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Delta Reform Act, and the public trust doctrine. Petitioners seek to set aside and vacate approval of the two agreements and restrain DWR from taking certain action to implement the agreements. Westlands is a California water district with vested contractual rights to water from the CVP. (See Declaration of Russ Freeman (Freeman Decl.), 116.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2019

DOS VIENTOS VS. CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS

arising under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")(Pub.

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2019

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SIERRA CLUB VS. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [EFILE]

Background Sierra Club filed a petition to compel the County of San Diego to set aside its July 25, 2018 approvals of three development projects (Harmony Grove South, Valiano, and Otay 250) for failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Sierra Club also seeks declaratory relief as to whether the County has approved more than four amendments to the General Plan in a year for purposes of Government Code section 65358(b).

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2019

SHELDON KIM VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC ET AL

(b) requires California Environmental Quality Act litigants to inform agency of objections before litigation to give agency opportunity to respond].) What constitutes a “reasonable” time will depend on the context. Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553, 576 (bold emphasis and underlining added). Plaintiff admits that his employment was terminated on November 9, 2017, effective November 12, 2017. Declaration of Sheldon Kim, ¶ 12.

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ROBIN RUDISILL ET AL VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ET AL

Appellants further challenged the challenged the decision to declare the Project categorically exempt from CEQA, arguing that its incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood will result in a significant effect on the environment. AR 265. 3. The Appeal Hearing On May 19, 2017, Commission staff issued a staff report recommending that the Commission determine that the appeal did not raise a substantial issue. AR 1.

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ROBIN RUDISILL ET AL VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ET AL

Rudisill also argued that the approvals did not comply with CEQA because they did not discuss the cumulative adverse impact of the project as it relates to the compatibility to the existing character, mass, and scale of the neighborhood. AR 212. a. The Substantial Issue Determination The Commission set the appeals for a substantial issue hearing on June 10, 2015. AR 1373, 1691-93. Commission staff submitted a report recommending a finding of a substantial issue for both appeals. AR 1390.

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

STOP SYAR EXPANSION V. COUNTY OF NAPA, ET AL.

Stop Syar Expansion petitions the Court for a writ of mandate, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), directing respondent County of Napa (County) to set aside and vacate its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and project approvals for the Napa Syar Quarry Expansion Project.

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2019

AFFORDABLE CLEAN WATER ALLIANCE VS SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SANI

On June 2, 2016, the court granted ACWA’s motion for an order maintaining the writ of mandate in force and finding that the District’s certification of a Modified EIR and SEIR did not comply with CEQA. The District was ordered to reconsider its return to the writ and file an additional return when it had certified an EIR for the Project in a manner that complies with CEQA.

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIANS FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT VS CITY O

County of Merced, (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 488, 496 (significant public benefit where litigation prompted agency to improve methods of creating and managing its CEQA records). The trial court determines “the significance of the benefit, as well as the size of the class receiving benefit, from a realistic assessment, in light of all the pertinent circumstances, of the gains which have resulted in a particular case.” Woodland Hills, supra, 23 Cal.3d at 939-40.

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KARNEY MANAGEMENT COMPANY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

KARNEY I The Petition for Writ of Mandate (“Karney I”), filed on 3/5/18, asserts causes of action for: Violation of CEQA – Inadequate MND CUP Findings are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence Violations of State and City laws 1st Cause of Action: CEQA Violation The 1st Cause of Action alleges Violation of CEQA for an Inadequate MND.

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2019

COX V. CITY OF VACAVILLE, ET AL.

Therefore, we request that the City of Vacaville prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. The Director of Community Development prejudicially abused his discretion by failing to prepare an EIR as required by CEQA. This appeal failed to specify what adverse environmental impacts might be caused by the project, nor cited or provided any evidence.

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2019

FIX THE CITY INC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Petitioner seeks to recover fees incurred in connection with their successful challenge to Respondents City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles City Council’s (collectively “Respondents”) approval of a 27 story mixed use development project proposed to be constructed by Real Parties in Interest Colony Holdings, LLC and Mike Hakim (collectively, “RPIs”) on a residential street in the Koreatown neighborhood of the City of Los Angeles without proper compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2019

FIGHT BACK VENICE! VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Project was not subjected to adequate environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The City certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and an addendum to the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (“PEIR”) for the PSHO and the IMCO.

  • Hearing

    May 07, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

OAK HILL PARK VS. CITY OF ANTIOCH

As will become clear, because certain of those motions also concern the Richland Initiative, the Court must decide another threshold issue: whether the Richland Initiative is itself void for improperly including the Development Agreement and, as a result, failing to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). a.

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2019

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 28     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.