What is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)?

Useful Resources for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Recent Rulings on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

76-100 of 695 results

ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE [E-FILE]

Background Petitioners challenges California Department of Fish and Wildlife's ("the Department") decision to enter into the Dispute Resolution Agreement ("DRA") addressing a land exchange prior to conducting any environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The DRA was entered into by the Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), the County of San Diego ("County"), and the land owner GDCI Proctor Valley, L.P.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

CA CONSTRUCTION VS. COUNTY OF VENTURA

Applicants seek to intervention primarily to defend the County's application of CEQA exemptions to the Ordinances. Applicants' knowledge, background, and expertise regarding wildlife conservation, habitat connectivity, and CEQA will serve to inform the adjudication of Petitioners' causes of action, but Applicants will not raise new factual or legal issues.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

VC COALITION OF LABOR VS. COUNTY OF VENTURA

Applicants seek to intervention primarily to defend the County's application of CEQA exemptions to the Ordinances. Applicants' knowledge, background, and expertise regarding wildlife conservation, habitat connectivity, and CEQA will serve to inform the adjudication of Petitioners' causes of action, but Applicants will not raise new factual or legal issues.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

VC COALITION OF LABOR VS. COUNTY OF VENTURA

Applicants seek to intervention primarily to defend the County's application of CEQA exemptions to the Ordinances. Applicants' knowledge, background, and expertise regarding wildlife conservation, habitat connectivity, and CEQA will serve to inform the adjudication of Petitioners' causes of action, but Applicants will not raise new factual or legal issues.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

R. MORGAN HOLLAND V. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

The Planning Commission found the Project was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) on the ground it qualified for categorical exemptions, known as Class 1 (existing facilities) and Class 3 (small structures). (AR 0232.) The Planning Commission further found that the Project “will not have a cumulative impact, [and] will not have a significant effect due to unusual circumstances ….” (AR 0232.) On November 22, 2018, R.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION VS SIGNAL HILL SERVICE INC ET AL

[CC ¶20] After the assignment of off-shore, pipeline, and on-shore leases to Signal and CPC, CPC submitted to the State of California and the Commission a development plan for further extraction of oil and gas under the leases, with anticipated review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and federal environmental statutes. The state-federal development plan was deemed complete on or about September 2009.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

PRESERVE CALAVERA VS CITY OF OCEANSIDE [E-FILE]

Friends not only could have brought this claim under the SMA rather than CEQA, it in fact did, in causes of action two through four."

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

RURAL COMMUNITIES UNITED V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

Petitioner opposes the motion on the following grounds: petitioner is a prevailing party entitled to an award of costs under Code of Civil Procedure, § 1032(a)(4) as they prevailed on primary litigation objectives to require the County to revisit its decision that preserving habitat in the Highway 50 corridor was not a feasible mitigation strategy and prevented the clearing of oak woodlands in the corridor pending further CEQA review; petitioners should be awarded their costs to prepare the administrative record

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

WASTE MANAGEMENT COLLECTION & RECYCLING INC VS CITY OF IRWIN

In its writ briefs, WMCRI made numerous other challenges under CEQA, which were rejected by the court. (See Court’s Decision.) On October 21, 2019, the court issued a Peremptory Writ of Mandate, ordering Irwindale to set aside, among other things, the FEIR, the Addendum, the DDA and the Land Use Approvals, and to take all steps necessary to bring the EIR into compliance with CEQA.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITY OF BALDWIN PARK VS CITY OF IRWINDALE ET AL

The court concludes that a substantial reduction in fees is appropriate for this second phase (June 10, 2016 to May 21, 2019) because it includes administrative and PRA tasks unrelated to Baldwin Park’s success in this CEQA action, and because it includes BHFS’s work in briefing numerous, unsuccessful CEQA and non-CEQA claims.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

THE SUNSET LANDMARK INVESTMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, PETITIONER VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

(Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEB 2d ed.) § 23.73.) In this case, Petitioner is challenging the City’s approval of land use entitlements and the MND for the Selma Wilcox Hotel project, not the City’s approval of land use entitlements or environmental documents for other developments, such as the Tao Restaurant or Dream Hotel. (FAP ¶ 1.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

THE SUNSET LANDMARK INVESTMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, PETITIONER VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

(Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEB 2d ed.) § 23.73.) In this case, Petitioner is challenging the City’s approval of land use entitlements and the MND for the Selma Wilcox Hotel project, not the City’s approval of land use entitlements or environmental documents for other developments, such as the Tao Restaurant or Dream Hotel. (FAP ¶ 1.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL INTERPRETERS OF CALIFORNIA VS SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ORANGE COUNTY

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

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SAVE 30TH STREET PARKING VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]

Petitioner also alleges that even if Option A+ were a new project, Respondents' committed themselves to it and violated the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The proposed Supplemental Petition alleges relevant facts because they relate to events that occurred subsequent to the filing of the original petition.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

SAVE 30TH STREET PARKING VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]

Petitioner also alleges that even if Option A+ were a new project, Respondents' committed themselves to it and violated the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The proposed Supplemental Petition alleges relevant facts because they relate to events that occurred subsequent to the filing of the original petition.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

LOS ANGELES WATERKEEPER VS CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCE

Petition BS171009 Petitioner Waterkeeper commenced this proceeding on September 26, 2017, alleging causes of action under the California Constitution Article X, section 2 (“Article X, section 2”), the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and the Water Code. The verified Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

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

City of Napa (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1167; Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed.) § 23.22 (“If the notice of determination or exemption does not properly describe the project or the agency’s decision, the agency may not rely on filing and posting the notice to trigger a shorter limitations period. [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MEILANIE ADILENE CONTRERAS-JARA,A MINOR,BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM,GLADYS JULIANA VS CARLOS E. CACERES,AN INDIVIDUAL

City of Napa (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1167; Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed.) § 23.22 (“If the notice of determination or exemption does not properly describe the project or the agency’s decision, the agency may not rely on filing and posting the notice to trigger a shorter limitations period. [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

SAVE OUR ACCESS-SANGABRIEL MOUNTAINS VS WATERSHED CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Given that the WCA is the governmental agency responsible for conducting environmental studies in compliance with CEQA prior to issuing approvals for projects, the Court finds that private enforcement was the only method of ensuring the WCA’s compliance with CEQA.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BARRY CASSILLY, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

These memoranda encapsulate the City’s official policy that properties identified in SurveyLA as a potential contributor within the Districts “are presumed to be historical resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 21084.1 of the CEQA Statute and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines).

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

THETWO HUNDRED VS. CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY

) ' Petitioner characterizes the second CPRA request as an attempt to learn "of Respondents['] actions purportedly undertaken independent of the 2017 Scoping Plan, such as expansions of CEQA to reduce VMT through revisions to the regulations implementing CEQA." (Opening Brf. at 5:16-20.) In November 2018, Petitioner filed this action to compel production of the records Respondents withheld.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

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

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PETITION OF DAVISSON ENTERPRISES INC [E-FILE]

Petitioner asserts the approval violated the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State Planning and Zoning Law by being inconsistent with the City's Central Village Specific Plan ("CVSP"), Community Plan, and Climate Action Plan ("CAP"). Within the City of San Diego General Plan ("General Plan") is the Otay Mesa Community Plan ("OMCP"), which provides community-scale policy recommendations for specific geographic areas of the City. (Administrative Record ["AR"] 101.005.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

REDONDO BEACH WATERFRONT, LLC VS CITY OF REDONDO BEACH

On November 18, 2016, Building a Better Redondo filed a lawsuit challenging the Waterfront Entitlements (the “CEQA Lawsuit”). (FAC, ¶ 38.) On or about July 30, 2018, judgment was entered in the CEQA Lawsuit setting aside the EIR, but the VTTM was not set aside. (FAC, ¶ 38.) The court in the CEQA Lawsuit directed the City to prepare and recirculate for public review a revised EIR. (FAC, ¶ 38, Ex. H.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PROTECT TUSTIN RANCH VS. THE CITY OF TUSTIN

Public Resources Code §21167.4(a) provides: “In any action or proceeding alleging noncompliance with [CEQA], the petitioner shall request a hearing within 90 days from the date of filing the petition or shall be subject to dismissal on the court’s own motion or on the motion of any party interested in the action or proceeding.” Petitioner filed its petition on November 19, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 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.