What is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)?

Useful Resources for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Recent Rulings on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

151-175 of 695 results

CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

The mling goes on to analyze whether the geotechnical project was part of the BDCP for purposes of CEQA, whether an EIR was required for the geotechnical project, and whether DWR complied with CEQA notice and recirculation requirements. (M.) All analysis in the submitted matter ruling is specific to the 2010 MND and its interaction with the BDCP.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2020

CITIZENS FOR POSITIVE GROWTH & PRESERVATION VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Respondents maintained the ordinances did not qualify as “projects” under the California Environmental Quality Act, therefore they were not subject to environmental review. are “projects” pursuant to CEQA.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2019

RESIDENTS OF WESTMINSTER VS. CITY OF WESTMINSTER

Indeed, failure to augment the record would prejudice the City and RPI: “[W]hen it comes to the administrative record in a CEQA case, any reduction in its contents is presumptively prejudicial to project proponents. [Citation.] It is, after all, the project proponents who will be saddled with the task of pointing to things in the record to refute asserted inadequacies.” (County of Orange, supra, 113 Cal.App.4th at p. 13 [emphasis original].)

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2019

DEL MAR ALLIANCE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF BEACH ACCESS AND VILLAGE VS CITY OF DEL MAR [E-FILE]

The sole cause of action for "Illegal Approval and Adoption of STR Ban" alleges the Resolution violates the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and Coastal Act, and deprives property owners of due process. Discussion The City argues that its adoption of the Resolution is not subject to environmental review under CEQA because it merely restates existing law. An activity that is not a "project" as defined in CEQA and the Guidelines (Cal.

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2019

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

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

    Dec 13, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BIODIVERSITY FIRST! V. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, ET AL.

Petitioner specifically alleges that the Department never formally adopted the Management Plan, never initiated or completed formal environmental review of the Management Plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and never prepared or certified an EIR. (Compl., ¶ 22; Opening Brief, p. 5, ll. 5-7.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. CAL. DEPARTMENT OF

Specifically, Section 21080.5 exempts regulatory programs that are “functionally equivalent” to the EIR process from two chapters of CEQA, as well as one additional section: chapter 3 (§ 21100, et seq.), chapter 4 (§ 21150, et seq.), and Public Resources Code Section 21167. (EPIC, supra, 170 Cal.App.3d at 617.) Chapters 3 and 4 of CEQA relate to the preparation of an EIR.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

DEL MAR ALLIANCE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF BEACH ACCESS AND VILLAGE VS CITY OF DEL MAR [E-FILE]

The sole cause of action for "Illegal Approval and Adoption of STR Ban" alleges the Resolution violates the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and Coastal Act, and deprives property owners of due process. Discussion The City argues that its adoption of the Resolution is not subject to environmental review under CEQA because it merely restates existing law. An activity that is not a "project" as defined in CEQA and the Guidelines (Cal.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COLLABORATIVE ET AL VS CITY OF L A ET

FTC contended, among other things, that the Project violated the City’s zoning ordinances, the City’s General Plan, and CEQA. B. EJC Case On May 6, 2016, Petitioners Environmental Justice Collaborative and Friends of the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative (collectively “EJC”) filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief against the City (case no. BS162453) (“EJC Case”). EJC sought to set aside the City’s approval of the Project based on violations of CEQA. C.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LAGUNA GREENBELT INC VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE

Those two causes of action are based on the allegations that those approvals violate the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and/or the City's General Plan and Zoning Code, and/or the County's General Plan and Zoning Code, and/or Measure W. Thus, when it decides the two writ claims, the Court will also likely decide the questions raised by the declaratory relief claim.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

LAGUNA GREENBELT INC VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE

Those two causes of action are based on the allegations that those approvals violate the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and/or the City's General Plan and Zoning Code, and/or the County's General Plan and Zoning Code, and/or Measure W. Thus, when it decides the two writ claims, the Court will also likely decide the questions raised by the declaratory relief claim.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

LAGUNA GREENBELT INC VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE

Those two causes of action are based on the allegations that those approvals violate the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and/or the City's General Plan and Zoning Code, and/or the County's General Plan and Zoning Code, and/or Measure W. Thus, when it decides the two writ claims, the Court will also likely decide the questions raised by the declaratory relief claim.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

COALITION TO SAVE SAN MARIN AND NOVATO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

CEQA defines substantial evidence as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a); see San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rexcue Center v. County of Stanislaw (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

FIGHT BACK VENICE! VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

FBV alleges that 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

    Dec 05, 2019

  • 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.

During the CEQA proceeding that followed, the appellant requested judicial notice of an EIR prepared for the 1990 amendment of the City of Porterville’s General Plan (“GPA EIR”) and an urgency ordinance concerning hillside development that was passed on the same date that the housing project was approved (“Ordinance”). (Ibid.) These requests as well as the CEQA petition were eventually granted. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

EMERGENCY SHELTER COALITION VS. CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

Code §21167.6(b) applies the same rule in CEQA cases: “The parties (which the statute distinguishes from the public agency) shall pay any reasonable costs or fees imposed for the preparation of the record of proceedings in conformance with any law or rule of court.” Courts agree that taxpayers should not have to fund a party’s case, and that the petitioner is initially responsible for the cost of the administrative record. Coalition for Adequate Review v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 229 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

RURAL COMMUNITIES UNITED V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

“This was to be achieved using the mechanisms provided by the Forest Practice Rules, timberland conversion regulations, fire safety requirements, forest improvement assistance programs, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires avoidance or mitigation of impacts affecting forest site productivity or forest carbon losses to conversion” (CARB 2014, p. 70).

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

COLINAS DE CAPISTRANO COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL

Courts have often noted the Legislature’s clear determination that the public interest is not served unless CEQA challenges are promptly filed and diligently prosecuted.” Accordingly, Petitioner/Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action alleging CEQA violations is barred by the 30-day statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

EMERGENCY SHELTER COALITION VS. CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

Code §21167.6(b) applies the same rule in CEQA cases: “The parties (which the statute distinguishes from the public agency) shall pay any reasonable costs or fees imposed for the preparation of the record of proceedings in conformance with any law or rule of court.” Courts agree that taxpayers should not have to fund a party’s case, and that the petitioner is initially responsible for the cost of the administrative record. Coalition for Adequate Review v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 229 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

OAK HILL PARK CO. VS. THE CITY OF ANTIOCH

Section 8 Oak Hill argues that Section 8 improperly usurps an administrative function by prescribing mitigation measures required under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) for the Richland Ranch Project. This argument lacks merit, because Section 8 merely states the intent of the voters that the project will fully comply with CEQA; it does not prescribe any specific mitigation measures. (AR 504.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

GOLDEN DOOR PROPERTIES LLC VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]

This was a complicated CEQA/land use case that was handled by skilled counsel. Also, the requested fee award reflects about 8 percent of the merits fees ($465,926.00) that was awarded. The motion is timely. The court's July 26, 2019 order specifically allowed petitioner to seek additional attorneys' fees (fees-on-fees) in a subsequent motion. See ROA 190, p. 8.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS VS CITY OF COACHELLA

Further, while a court has discretion under CCP § 389(b) to find that an entity whose interests could be affected by a CEQA challenge is not indispensable if its interests will be adequately represented by the parties who have been joined [Deltakeeper v. Oakdale Irrigation Dist. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1102; Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

PROTECT OUR HOMES AND HILLS VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE

Modify the [SRFEIR] for the Project in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA guidelines, and [the Opinion], to bring it into full compliance with CEQA; 3. Proceed in the matter required by CEQA for all procedural matters; and 4. Suspend all Project activities regarding the installation, or noninstallation, of solar PV roof panels on each residence unless and until the County complies with CEQA. (Id. at p. 4.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2019

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

On February 28, 2019, AHF and Liveable LA filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and a Complaint for Declaratory Relief, alleging five causes of action: Violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Violations of Planning and Zoning Law and Community Redevelopment Law Requirements Violations of Community Redevelopment Law by Failure to Provide Sufficient Affordable Housing in the Hollywood Redevelopment Area Writ of Mandate – Compel Compliance with the CRL Replacement Obligation

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2019

APS WEST COAST, INC. V. CITY OF BENICIA, ET AL.

The majority of cases cited by both sides are CEQA cases, not denial of permit cases, and so are of limited assistance and relevance here. In the related field of judicial disqualification, the focus is on the bias or prejudice of the judge, “sufficient to impair the judge’s impartiality”. Andrews v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 781, 792. It stands to reason on an administrative mandamus petition, the focus is on the city’s decision-makers, ultimately the city council members.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

  « 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.