What is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)?

Useful Resources for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Recent Rulings on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

176-200 of 698 results

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

BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS INC. V. CITY OF VACAVILLE

Superior Court (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 697, 713 [rejecting argument that discovery is not allowed in a CEQA case]. Standing is generally not an issue in CEQA, because both citizens and nonprofit corporations have a presumed public interest in bringing a CEQA action, even if they have no direct and substantial beneficial interest at stake, and even for-profit corporations may be directly affected and thus have standing. Save the Bag Coalition v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

TIBURON OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE VS. COUNTY OF MARIN

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2019

NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE VS. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

Petitioners allege that in approving the COA Addendum and Hold Harmless Agreement, DWR 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. NDWA also challenges DWR’s approvals and moves to intervene in support of Petitioners.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2019

NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE VS. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

Petitioners allege that in approving the COA Addendum and Hold Harmless Agreement, DWR 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. NDWA also challenges DWR's approvals and moves to intervene in support of Petitioners.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2019

CITIZENS OVERSIGHT INC VS. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

She held: "The conflict between Coastal Act § 30801 and CEQA § 21167.4 can be harmonized by applying the mandatory dismissal provision of § 21167.4 so long as the weight of the potential adverse environmental impact does not balance against requiring dismissal. "Petitioners challenge a Coastal Commission decision to permit long-term storage of more than three-million pounds of nuclear waste on the beach within fifty miles of 8,400,000 California residents. (Complaint, ¶ 19.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITIZENS OVERSIGHT INC VS. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

She held: "The conflict between Coastal Act § 30801 and CEQA § 21167.4 can be harmonized by applying the mandatory dismissal provision of § 21167.4 so long as the weight of the potential adverse environmental impact does not balance against requiring dismissal. "Petitioners challenge a Coastal Commission decision to permit long-term storage of more than three-million pounds of nuclear waste on the beach within fifty miles of 8,400,000 California residents. (Complaint, ¶ 19.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, A PUBLIC BODY VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC CORPORATION, ET AL.

While LACMTA acknowledges that CEQA compliance requires “[a]n accurate, stable and finite project description,” LACMTA argues that there is no authority for the proposition that such a description is conditioned on compliance with NEPA, much less the existence of a pending NEPA challenge. (See Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. Hensler (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 577, 592.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2019

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, A PUBLIC BODY VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

While LACMTA acknowledges that CEQA compliance requires “[a]n accurate, stable and finite project description,” LACMTA argues that there is no authority for the proposition that such a description is conditioned on compliance with NEPA, much less the existence of a pending NEPA challenge. (See Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. Hensler (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 577, 592.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2019

SAVE OUR ACCESS-SANGABRIEL MOUNTAINS VS WATERSHED CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Area of Controversy Petitioner claims that the EIR fails to comply with CEQA because it fails to identify anything, let alone parking, as an “area of controversy” in violation of CEQA Guidelines. The CEQA Guidelines provide in pertinent part: “(a) An EIR shall contain a brief summary of the proposed actions and its consequences.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

COUNTY OF ORANGE VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

CEQA environmental review."

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PUBLIC INTEREST COALITION VS. CALIFORNIA FISH & GAME COMMISSION

It is “not intended to be a substitute for document[s] prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); the Commission will fully comply with CEQA at the time it makes a final decision.” (AR 101.) According to the analysis, GPS collars contain a transmitter that triangulates signals from a minimum of 3 satellites in order to provide hunters with the “exact location” of their dog(s). (AR 102.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

PROTECT OUR HOMES AND HILLS VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE

Standard of Review Petitioners seek fees under CCP § 1021.5, which may be used by a prevailing petitioner to recover fees in a CEQA action. (See Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 603, 612 (CBD).) For a prevailing CEQA petitioner to recover fees, it must show the litigation vindicated an important public right and imparted a significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons.

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2019

PUBLIC WATCHDOGS VS CALIFORNIA STATE LAND COMMISSION [E-FILE]

Background This is a petition brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The underlying dispute pertains to a decision of respondent State Land Commission (the Commission) that: (1) certified a final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and (2) approved a project regarding decontaminating and dismantling a nuclear power plant (which included disposal of about 2 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel).

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JASON P RUBIN VS WARREN J KESSLER ET AL

The FAC is based on a controversy over enforcing a settlement agreement with regards to a sewer easement, while the relevant statements at the commissioners’ meetings (according to the Kesslers’ own motion) were regarding dirt excavation during construction and CEQA. (Motion at 15.) While it may be true that the Kesslers’ speech at the commissioners’ meetings is protected speech, “the speech itself does not constitute the controversy.” (City of Alhambra v. D'Ausilio, supra, 193 Cal.App.4th at p. 1308.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SHARON LOVEYS VS CITY OF RANCHOS PALOS VERDES ET AL

The third cause of action for administrative mandamus alleges that the City violated CEQA and abused its discretion by failing to adopt any findings in compliance with CEQA or citing the reasons in support of why the Project is exempt from CEQA.

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

NO. COAST RIVERS ET AL VS. WESTLANDS ET AL

The complaint alleges that Westlands has assisted and cooperated with planning for a Shasta Dam raise in violation of Public Resources Code § 5093.542(c) by taking steps to become a cost-sharing partner with the federal government to raise Shasta Dam and expand Shasta Reservoir and developing an environmental impact report, as a lead agency under CEQA (Complaint, ¶¶ 42-48). Whether Westlands has actually done these things is immaterial to the present motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2019

NO. COAST RIVERS ET AL VS. WESTLANDS ET AL

The complaint alleges that Westlands has assisted and cooperated with planning for a Shasta Dam raise in violation of Public Resources Code § 5093.542(c) by taking steps to become a cost-sharing partner with the federal government to raise Shasta Dam and expand Shasta Reservoir and developing an environmental impact report, as a lead agency under CEQA (Complaint, ¶¶ 42-48). Whether Westlands has actually done these things is immaterial to the present motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2019

MONTERREY COASTKEEPER, A PROGRAM OF THE OTTER PROJECT, A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION VS. CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

Petitioners argued the modified waiver violated various provisions of the Water Code and applicable state water policies, and the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). issue a new waiver consistent with its decision. The Court refers to this as “the underlying decision” or the “trial court decision.” 1 Petitioners thereafter filed a motion seeking attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the so-called private attorney general statute.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2019

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, A PUBLIC BODY VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC CORPORATION, ET AL.

LACMTA also submits evidence that the Project is CEQA-compliant. (McKenna Decl., ¶¶ 20-21, Skinner Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. 4.) Next, LACMTA contends that its proposed use of the needed subsurface area is compatible with BHUSD’s current public use. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2019

RURAL COMMUNITIES UNITED V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

In reversing the trial court’s dismissal of a CEQA action after sustaining demurrers to the petition, the appellate court in Garrison v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2019

YCS INVESTMENTS, INC. V. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

YCS agreed to County’s proposed settlement, and 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

    Sep 12, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

KELLY CHRISTIANSEN VS. CITY OF OXNARD

Oxnard persuasively argues that since the petition alleges non-compliance with CEQA, the filing of the petition on 2/21/19 triggered the start of a 90-day period for Petitioners to file a request for hearing pursuant to CEQA.

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2019

  • 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.