What is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)?

Useful Resources for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Recent Rulings on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

101-125 of 695 results

GRAND PETROLEUM, INC. V. COUNTY OF FRESNO

Here, petitioner sought an order vacating and setting aside the conditional use permit for the project, vacating and setting aside the IS/MND and the NOD, and requiring respondent to prepare, circulate, and consider a new legally adequate CEQA analysis for the project.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

IN THE MATTER OF TIMOTHY WILLIAMS

Petition Petitioners commenced this proceeding on September 27, 2018, alleging causes of action for violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the Coastal Act of 1976 (“Coastal Act”) (Public Resources Code §30000 et seq.). The verified Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows. The Project seeks to partially demolish and relocate a historic residential resource, a 100-year old Craftsman located at 925 Marco Place.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF CARMEN IRENE DE JESUS

Petition Petitioners commenced this proceeding on September 27, 2018, alleging causes of action for violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the Coastal Act of 1976 (“Coastal Act”) (Public Resources Code §30000 et seq.). The verified Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows. The Project seeks to partially demolish and relocate a historic residential resource, a 100-year old Craftsman located at 925 Marco Place.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

FRIENDS OF OCEANO DUNES, INC. V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

Finally, as to the argument that recreation is not a CEQA policy, Friends argues in reply that land used for recreation in the coastal zone is an impact that must be analyzed under CEQA, that recreation and dust control measures are mutually exclusive, and that impacts to land used for recreation in the coastal zone must be analyzed under CEQA. CEQA requires study of significant impacts on the environment, including impacts to land used for recreation.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

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

    Jul 14, 2020

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA V. TRUE HORIZONS, LLC, ET AL.

Hensler, 233 Cal.App.3d 577 (1991), the court permitted a CEQA challenge to the adoption of a resolution of necessity by both an affirmative defense in an answer and by a cross-complaint for petition for writ of mandate. Id. at 588-589. Although this is not a CEQA challenge, the court sees no reason why True Horizons cannot use both means in this action. The same standard of review applies in either instance. Id. at 589. 7. Pub. Res.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

AFFORDABLE CLEAN WATER ALLIANCE, A CALIFORNIA UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION VS SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, A SPECIAL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Petition Petitioner ACWA commenced this action on August 26, 2019, alleging causes of action for violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The verified Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows. The Petition is a protective filing in the event the court does not set aside the District’s 2017 Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (“REIR”) for its Chloride Compliance Project in Case No. BS170983.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

R. MORGAN HOLLAND V. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

The first alternative analysis requires a twofold inquiry: (1) whether the project presents unusual circumstances; and (2) whether there is a reasonable possibility that a significant environmental impact will result from those unusual circumstances. (1 Kostka and Zischke, Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 2019) § 5.72, p. 5-63; see also Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1105.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

COALITION TO PRESERVE LA, INC., A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES , A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

Violation of CEQA—ElR Does not Comply 2. Violation of CEQA—Failure to Substantially Support Findings 3. Violation of CEQA—Failure to Revise and Recirculate 4. Violation of State Planning & Zoning Law 5. [sic, mislabeled as "fourth cause of action”] Violation of Subdivision Map 6.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LANCE JAY ROBBINS PALOMA PARTNERSHIP VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

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

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

COALITION FOR AGRICULTURAL RIGHTS V. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

Petitioner’s complaint asserts two causes of action, for (1) County violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code sections 21168 and 21168.5; and (2) “The Hemp Prohibition Violates the Law and is Unsupported by Any Evidence,” which Petitioner alleges violates Code of Civil Procedure sections 1060, 1085, and 1094.5. Petitioner is a Wyoming nonprofit mutual benefit corporation1, formed to support the hemp industry within the County. (Pet., ¶ 12.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

ROBIN RUDISILL ET AL VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ET AL

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

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

A G JOHNSON VS CITY OF LYNWOOD ET AL

City of San Rafael (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 989, 1014-19 [trial court acted within its discretion in awarding costs to city that successfully defended CEQA action brought by landowner, even though landowner elected to prepare the record, since landowner did not comply with statutory duty to strive to prepare record at reasonable cost].)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

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. Statement of Facts A. Shrader-Frechette Deposition On January 22, 2020, Pasadena Gateway noticed the deposition of Petitioner’s PMK for February 7, 2020. (Sherlock Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. 9.) The deposition notice contained 21 topics of inquiry and 24 requests for production of documents. (Sherlock Decl. Ex. 9.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CHIQUITA CANYON LLC VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Petitioner cites no legal authority that CEQA findings of significance were necessary for County to impose conditions of approval on the Landfill. Petitioner also does not show that findings of significance or non-significance for purposes of CEQA must be applied rigidly or mechanically to non-CEQA land use decisions. Indeed, under CEQA, “a less than significant impact does not necessarily mean no impact at all.” (Oakland Heritage Alliance v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

YCS INVESTMENTS, INC. VS THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

YCS and County entered into a written agreement pursuant to which YCS would forgo its appeal and dismiss its pending CEQA action, and County would consider a single application for the development of 79 residential units all located in the County. (SAC, ¶¶ 20, 21.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2020

BRUZZONE VS. TOWN OF MORAGA

The CEQA guidelines themselves use a “checklist” approach to the initial study. (14 CCR § 15063, Appendix G.) Thus, there is nothing inherently flawed about the approach. II. CEQA CLAIMS Generally, Petitioners assert that an Environmental Impact Report should have been prepared, because the Project will have a significant effect on the environment. They also allege that any conclusion to the contrary is based on improper “piecemealing” of the project. A.

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2020

EARTH LAW CENTER VS. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

Finally, the court concluded that Petitioners’ CEQA claim was defective because the 2014/2016 Integrated Report was not a “project” warranting environmental review. The court thus sustained the demurrer but granted leave to amend the non-CEQA claims so that Petitioners could attempt to state a valid claim for declaratory relief. Petitioners filed a second amended petition and then, by stipulation, the third amended petition (TAP).

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

EARTH LAW CENTER VS. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

Finally, the court concluded that Petitioners' CEQA claim was defective because the 2014/2016 Integrated Report was not a "project" warranting environmental review. The court thus sustained the demurrer but granted leave to amend the non-CEQA claims so that Petitioners could attempt to state a val|d claim for declaratory relief. Petitioners filed a second amended petition and then, by stipulation, the third amended petition (TAP).

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

SAVE THE EL DORADO CANAL V. EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT

Thus, “despite the CEQA Guidelines' reference to ‘the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, ... the time environmental analysis is commenced’ [citation], ‘[n]either CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines mandates a uniform, inflexible rule for determination of the existing conditions baseline.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

PACIFIC PALISADES RESIDENTS ASSN INC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

CEQA Violations “In reviewing an agency's compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq., in the course of its legislative or quasi-legislative actions, the courts' inquiry shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Pub. Resources Code, § 21168.5. Such an abuse is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.”

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LA MIRADA AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OF HOLLYWOOD VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Statement of the Case Petitioner La Mirada commenced this proceeding on November 9, 2018, alleging causes of action for violations of (1) the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), (2) the Subdivision Map Act (Govt. Code §§ 66473.1, 66474.60-63), and (3) Los Angeles Municipal Code (“LAMC”) section 11.5.7.C and the Vermont/Western Transit Oriented District Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”). The verified Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows.

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

GREATER SGV SAFE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION VS CITY OF EL MONTE, ET AL.

Violation of CEQA In its third cause of action, Petitioner alleges that the City violated CEQA by failing to comply with its commandments prior to adoption of the Ordinance. (FAP ¶¶ 50-51.) The City persuasively responds that CEQA does not apply to citizen initiative petitions as a matter of law. In Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1029, the California Supreme Court held that CEQA review is not required before a municipality directly adopts a voter initiative.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BLAIR V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

Department of Health Services, supra, 38 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1595– 1596, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 822; see also Guide to the CEQA (1999 10th ed.), Remy, Thomas, Moose & Manley, pp. 595, 603–604 (Remy).)” (Emphasis added.) (Cadiz Land Co., Inc. v. Rail Cycle, L.P. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 119-120.) With the above-cited legal principles in mind, the court will rule on the respective motions of the petitioners in case numbers SC-20170189 and SC 20180061.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

RICHARD STANGER, ET AL. VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, ET AL.

See CEQA Guidelines §15130(a)(1), (a)(2). Similarly, in Hines the court discussed the lack of any evidence to support a claim that the lead agency could not rely on a categorical exemption under CEQA. 186 Cal.App.4th at 857. Reply at 12. These distinctions of Leonoff and Hines are ineffectual because cumulative effects under CEQA appear to have the same or similar meaning to those under the Coastal Act. Compare §30105.5 and CEQA Guidelines §15355(b).

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

  « 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.