What is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)?

Useful Resources for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Recent Rulings on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

201-225 of 698 results

SAVE THE CANYONS COALITION VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE

In light of the Court’s experience in CEQA cases and the evidence submitted in support of Petitioner’s fee motion, the Court finds that $650 is a reasonable hourly rate for an Orange County attorney performing high-quality work in CEQA-related litigation. 2. Time Expended The Court has reviewed the billing records submitted by Petitioner.

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2019

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 state a valid claim for declaratory relief. 303(d) lists and 305(b) reports by the April 1 biennial deadline. The State Board demurred.^ The court sustained the demurrer in part and overruled it in part.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2019

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 state a valid claim for declaratory relief. 303(d) lists and 305(b) reports by the April 1 biennial deadline. The State Board demurred. 2 The court sustained the demurrer in part and overruled it in part.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2019

NAPA VALLEY MODEL RAILROAD HISTORICAL SOCIETY V.

In the Court’s basic view, such actions can only be prohibited – on grounds of failure to comply with CEQA – if they either: (a) are independently subject to CEQA review, based on the possibility of the action having significant environmental impacts; or (b) sufficiently commit an agency to a project or a feature thereof, so as to effectively preclude any alternatives or mitigation measures that CEQA would otherwise require to be considered pursuant to the holding in Save Tara v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2019

NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE VS. DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL

Each case alleges the Council’s actions violated the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.), the Delta Reform Act (Water Code section 85000 et seq.), and/or the Public Trust Doctrine. All of the consolidated cases are based – at least in part – on the allegation that the Delta Plan Amendments allow the diversion or export of too much water from the Delta to the State Water Project.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2019

PRESERVATION SACRAMENTO VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Delisting Preservation Sacramento argues briefly that the City’s delisting of the Annex, separate and apart from the demolition, is a “project” requiring CEQA review. (See Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal.4th 165, 170, fn. 1 [assuming that the delisting of buildings in a historical register was a project under CEQA].)

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2019

PRESERVATION SACRAMENTO VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

In addition, the City Council filed a Notice of Exemption after determining that the project was "in-fill" development and, therefore, categorically exempt from CEQA review. This action followed.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2019

HELPING HAND TOOLS VS. CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION

Also in November 2018, CEC proposed to adopt an MND or negative declaration, for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. (Id. at ¶ 18.) The petition was filed December 7, 2018. Petitioner contends the grant of the SPPE was improper, that the process by which CEC proposes to adopt the MND is unlawful, and that substantial evidence exists that the project is likely to cause significant environmental impacts. (Id. at ¶ 20.) II.

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2019

HELPING HAND TOOLS VS. CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION

The request for a hearing on the merits of the CEQA claims, "must be made in a writing filed with the court to avoid dismissal." (County of Sacramento v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 943, 945-46.) If a petitioner fails to file a written hearing request within the time allowed, its CEQA claims "must be dismissed." (Mat 946.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2019

BERNATE TICINOTRUST DATED MARCH 2, 2009 TRUST '3' VS. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]

Plaintiffs they refused to pay the City for its work on the CEQA appeals because the City's conduct was contrary to law, and as a result they were sent to collections. This issue was first raised in the reply, depriving the City of the opportunity to respond. In addition, it is beyond the scope of this lawsuit and plaintiffs provide no authority that they were not required to pay the amounts billed.

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2019

VOICE OF SAN DIEGO VS SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY

- Binder 4: MV Budget [Everything in Mission Valley] which contains draft budgeting projections for the entire Mission Valley project sent from JMI Realty to SDSU on the following dates (divided by tab numbers): 12 (1) Tab 1: 11-7-18 [11-7-18 Acquisition + CEQA Only]. The court directs the clerk to return these lodged documents to the submitting party.

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

VOICE OF SAN DIEGO VS SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY

- Binder 4: MV Budget [Everything in Mission Valley] which contains draft budgeting projections for the entire Mission Valley project sent from JMI Realty to SDSU on the following dates (divided by tab numbers): 12 (1) Tab 1: 11-7-18 [11-7-18 Acquisition + CEQA Only]. The court directs the clerk to return these lodged documents to the submitting party.

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DUNNING VS. CLEWS

Second, it appears that Defendants were advancing an argument that, in the context of CEQA litigation, a full Environmental Impact Report (as opposed to a far more efficient "mitigated negative declaration") was required for a property upon which a single historic home sat. The Court of Appeal (along with the trial court) concluded that there was no "fair argument" (a fairly relaxed standard) that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was needed.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PEOPLE VS. WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT

The motion is made to halt a California Environmental Quality Act process initiated by Westlands Water District back in 2018, and to otherwise enjoin Westlands Water District from taking any action that would violate the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Public Resources Code section 5093.542. Preliminary Statement on Use of Evidence: Both parties have submitted requests for judicial notice of various federal and state documents in support of their respective positions.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2019

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

The court finds that a blended hourly rate of $675 is reasonable for sophisticated CEQA/land use litigation in San Diego in 2018. This conclusion is based in part on the survey information produced by the moving party, and in part on the court's own experience.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2019

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

The court finds that a blended hourly rate of $675 is reasonable for sophisticated CEQA/land use litigation in San Diego in 2018. This conclusion is based in part on the survey information produced by the moving party, and in part on the court's own experience.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2019

FRIENDS OF THE RIVER, ET AL VS. WESTLANDS

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 undertaking a CEQA process to analyze raising the dam (Complaint, ¶¶ 59, 60, 63, 73); participating in negotiations with the Bureau of Reclamation concerning the terms of a potential cost-share agreement for the dam raise (Complaint, ¶¶ 55-56, 61); and acquiring property to facilitate the raise (Complaint, ¶¶ 36, 62).

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2019

FRIENDS OF THE RIVER, ET AL VS. WESTLANDS

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 undertaking a CEQA process to analyze raising the dam (Complaint, ¶¶ 59, 60, 63, 73); participating in negotiations with the Bureau of Reclamation concerning the terms of a potential cost-share agreement for the dam raise (Complaint, ¶¶ 55-56, 61); and acquiring property to facilitate the raise (Complaint, ¶¶ 36, 62).

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2019

PEOPLE VS. WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT

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, ¶¶ 27, 32). Whether Westlands has actually done these things is immaterial to the present motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2019

PEOPLE VS. WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT

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, ¶¶ 27, 32). Whether Westlands has actually done these things is immaterial to the present motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2019

SAFE EMBARCADERO FOR ALL VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACTING BY & THROUGH ITS STATE LANDS COMMISSION

Finally, Safe Embarcadero alleges that the Project runs afoul of CEQA in several respects. The petition contains six counts. In Counts Two through Six, Safe Embarcadero seeks writs setting aside the City's approval of the Project. Count One contemplates a writ "compelling the ... Commission['s] approval prior to any lease, or continuing lease, of Seawall Lot 330 for the Project." (Pet., H 49.) Count One is entitled "Mandamus - Failure to Seek STATE LANDS COMMISSION Approval." (Id. at 7:4.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

FIGHT BACK VENICE! VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

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

    Jul 16, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BUENA VISTA 796, LLC VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

In compliance with this mandate, County adopted its own Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as Amended, in 1988, and has periodically amended the document. County’s Guidelines document notes that its purpose is to provide the definitions, procedure, and forms to be used in the implementation of CEQA, and to supplement the State CEQA Guidelines.

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2019

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

SAVE THE PARK AND BUILD THE SCHOOL VS CARDIFF SCHOOL DISTRIC

The first cause of action alleges CEQA violations other than the exemption issue. Plaintiff's objections are sustained. Respondent shall file an answer to the second amended petition and complaint by 7/22/19.

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SAVE THE PARK AND BUILD THE SCHOOL VS CARDIFF SCHOOL DISTRIC

The first cause of action alleges CEQA violations other than the exemption issue. Plaintiff's objections are sustained. Respondent shall file an answer to the second amended petition and complaint by 7/22/19.

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 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.