What is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)?

Useful Resources for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Recent Rulings on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

(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

    Nov 13, 2020

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

    Nov 13, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

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

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

    Nov 12, 2020

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

    Nov 12, 2020

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

    Nov 03, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 04, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 02, 2020

  • 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

    Oct 30, 2020

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

    Oct 30, 2020

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

    Oct 30, 2020

  • 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

    Oct 29, 2020

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

    Oct 29, 2020

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

    Oct 28, 2020

  • 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

    Oct 28, 2020

  • 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

    Oct 27, 2020

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

    Oct 27, 2020

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

    Oct 27, 2020

  • 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

    Oct 26, 2020

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

    Oct 23, 2020

RURAL COMMUNITIES UNITED V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

in El Dorado County only charge $325-$375 per hour; and the Sacramento market rate for CEQA attorneys is lower than claimed by petitioners.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

PETITION OF MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS INC

"It is well settled that extra-record evidence is generally not admissible in non-CEQA traditional mandamus actions challenging quasi-legislative administrative decisions." Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 574 (WSPA). In addition, the Department and Magellan object to the declaration of Anna Maria Bereczky-Anderson and its attachments, which were submitted in connection with MedImpact's rely brief. The objection is sustained for the same reasons.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

PROTECT OUR PRESERVES INC VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]

("Petitioner") challenges the City of San Diego's ("City" or "Respondent") approval of The Preserve at Torrey Highlands, Project No. 442880 ("Project") because it allegedly violated the voter-approved Torrey Highlands Subarea Plan ("THSP") and the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Beginning with the 1979 General Plan, the City managed growth through a tiering system with three geographic tiers: "urbanized," "planned urbanizing," and "future urbanizing."

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

THE TWO HUNDRED VS. GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH

By this action, they challenge the validity of several new regulations developed and adopted by Respondents Office of Planning and Research and Natural Resources Agency to implement the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq. 1 “CEQA is a comprehensive scheme designed to provide long-term protection to the environment.” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 112.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

THE TWO HUNDRED VS. GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH

(CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 28     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.