What is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)?

Useful Resources for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Recent Rulings on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Plaintiffs’ CEQA claim is likewise deficient. Given the timing of the phasing out of STRs, there is no evidence that that there is any immediate risk of the environment being adversely affected by the Ordinances. See Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 423-24. Stated simply, Plaintiffs’ claims at this time are speculative.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

REDONDO BEACH WATERFRONT LLC VS CITY OF REDONDO BEACH

Nehrenheim is one of the founders of Rescue Our Waterfront, the authors of Measure C and affiliates of Building a Better Redondo, the entity that filed a CEQA action to invalidate RBW’s entitlements. (RBW’s Ex. 7, at p. 16.) All three ran for elected office in the City of Redondo Beach (Mr. Brand for mayor and the other two for councilmember) on anti-Waterfront Project platforms. (Wardy Decl., ¶ 10.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

LAFAYETTE VS. TOWN OF MORAGA

(See CEQA Guidelines, Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, § 15270(a) [“CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.”]) The Council’s take on the issue was as follows: Finding: With respect to CEQA codified at California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., and as further governed by the State CEQA Guidelines, found at 14 CCR §§ 15000, et seq.), as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15270(a), "CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves."

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

COMMUNITY FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Petitioner has asserted a colorable claim, sufficient to survive demurrer, that City engaged in a “project” that is subject to CEQA review. (See Save Lafayette Trees v. City of Lafayette (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 148 [city’s decision to demolish historical building was subject to CEQA review].) The demurrer generally discusses several CEQA statutes other than the exemption in section 21080(b)(5).

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

SUREN SAHAKYAN VS LOS ANGELES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT, 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

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FRIENDS OF OCEANO DUNES INC VS. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

The descriptions of Document Nos. 1473,1469, 39, 41 and 1549-1552 refer to CEQA. The Consent Decree indicates that its approval would not trigger CEQA review. None of the declarants elaborate on the relationship between CEQA and Friends I. CARB does argue, though, that "as the topic description indicates, the redacted material addressed CEQA's potential application to the Consent Decree, which would establish a new mechanism for reducing particulate matter air pollution at Oceano Dunes." (Opp. at 21:5-7.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Pursuant to a settlement agreement, in 2008 Respondents prepared and certified a joint California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) EIS/EIR which disclosed that the terminal would have significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to air quality, aesthetics, biological resources, geology, transportation, noise, and water quality sediments and oceanography.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

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

The operative pleading is the FAP filed on August 10, 2020, alleging causes of action for violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The verified FAP alleges in pertinent part as follows. Contrary to the District’s February 25, 2019 Resolution statement through which SCVSD claimed to have abandoned or rejected its multi-million dollar, rate-payer funded “Recycled Water project,” the District is proceeding with the Recycled Water Project, and is doing so in violation of CEQA.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LOREN ROBINSON VS CITY OF INGLEWOOD

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

    Jan 12, 2021

  • 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.

Objections must “fairly apprise” the agency of the purported CEQA defects. (See Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 665, 685; accord Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEB 2d ed.) § 23.98.) A CEQA petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Bridges v. Mt. San Jacinto Community College Dist. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 104, 116.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

  • 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.

Objections must “fairly apprise” the agency of the purported CEQA defects. (See Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 665, 685; accord Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEB 2d ed.) § 23.98.) A CEQA petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Bridges v. Mt. San Jacinto Community College Dist. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 104, 116.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BARRY CASSILLY, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

, City Ordinances and CEQA Guidelines. 2.

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT VS THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

The agenda states that MWD’s General Manager made an exemption determination on the March Approval, and the staff report provides the grounds of that determination in a section entitled “California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)”: “On December 11, 2019, the Board authorized Metropolitan to enter into Interstate DCP Agreements and related intrastate implementing agreements.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SMITH VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE HEARING RE: DEMURRER ON BY COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO

., §§ 312, 363 [“action,” as used in title 2 of the code (Of the Time of Commencing Civil Actions), is construed “as including a special proceeding of a civil nature”); special proceedings of a civil nature include all proceedings in title 3 of the code, including mandamus actions under §§ 1085, 1088.5, and 1094.5—all the types of petitions for writ made for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and land use challenges]; see also Pub.

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2020

SAVE THE FIELD VS DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

A writ of mandate will issue vacating the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Del Mar Heights School Rebuild Project, vacating Respondent's approval of the Del Mar Heights School Rebuild Project, and suspending any and all activity pursuant to Respondent's approval of the Rebuild Project until Respondent has fully complied with all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Pub. Resources Code 21168.9.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

RURAL COMMUNITIES UNITED V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

statutory requirements to resolve CEQA issues in a timely manner; petitioners improperly expanded their opposition by filing a notice of errata after the time that the opposition was due to include a claim that the court can not consider the return on the writ due to lack of jurisdiction; the return to the writ satisfied the requirements of the writ issued by the court; the County was not required by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5(a)(3) to recirculate its finding that it was not feasible to preserve oak woodlands

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

VENICE SUITES LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

AR 1311-1328 is a letter from Petitioner’s architect providing an opinion “as to the applicability of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and California Historical Building Code (CHBC, Part 8 of Title 24)” to the Property. The architect opines the Property is a “qualified historical building or property under the CHBC. The subject property was described as an apartment house with temporary or weekly availability.” (AR 1314.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA V. UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

Professional Scientists involved a challenge under Proposition 13 to flat fees charged by the Department of Fish and Game (Fish & Game) to cover costs of meeting environmental review obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 711.4. (Professional Scientists, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at pp. 938-939.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION VS. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

In the first cause of action, the Foundation alleges that the Ordinance and zoning amendment violated CEQA. The CEQA cause of action is not a subject of the City's demurrer. In its second cause of action, the Foundation alleges that the Ordinance and zoning amendment run afoul of Section 34173(1) and must be set aside.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

SAN LUIS OBISPO WELLNESS CENTER, CORP. V. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

In the context of the California Environmental Quality Act, the legislature characterizes 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.” (Smith v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 199.) “Substantial evidence must be of ponderable legal significance. Obviously, the word cannot be deemed synonymous with any evidence.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

SANTA BARBARA COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE CANNABIS, INC. V. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, ET AL.

“Among otherthings, Petitioner raised and presented substantial evidence supporting arguments that Projectapproval would violate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the Williamson Act, and challenging the adequacy of LUPapproval findings required by the LUDC including the County’s pattern and practice of ignoringviolations based on illegal expansions of nonconforming cannabis operations, including [Busy Bee’s] own illegal expansion of cannabis cultivation.”

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

MARY JACK ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

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

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SAVE OUR MISSION-SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO VS. CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

It would hardly be sound public policy to allow a party to avoid CEQA by continuing with construction of a project in the face of litigation, delaying preparation of a court-ordered EIR pending appeal, and then arguing the case is moot because the project has been completed and is operating.” (Wilson, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at 1580). (Emphasis added.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

SHEETZ V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has, through Resolution 265-2006, certified a Supplement to the 2004 General Plan Environmental Impact Report which documents the potential increase in the severity of one impact identified in the 2004 General Plan Environmental Impact Report; the facts and evidence presented in the reports, analyses, and a public hearing at the Board of Supervisors establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the described public facilities and the impacts of the

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

GREGORY LUCAS VS CITY OF POMONA

The Petition Petitioner Lucas commenced this proceeding on December 24, 2019, alleging a cause of action for violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and seeking the remedy of injunctive relief. The verified Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows. On October 9, 2019, at a public hearing, the City’s Planning Commission considered a recommendation to City Council to approve the Ordinance.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

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.