What is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)?

Useful Resources for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Rulings on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

1-25 of 698 results

MURTAZA BAXAMUSA VS. CIVIC SAN DIEGO

., (Case No. 37-2016-00042702-CU-TT-CTL), concerns a California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") matter, an issue in which cannot be heard in Department C-75. Only designated judges may hear CEQA matters, and this department is not a designated CEQA department. Thus, the Motion to Relate Cases is denied. All requests for judicial notice are granted.

  • Hearing

    Mar 23, 2017

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MURTAZA BAXAMUSA VS. CIVIC SAN DIEGO

., (Case No. 37-2016-00042702-CU-TT-CTL), concerns a California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") matter, an issue in which cannot be heard in Department C-75. Only designated judges may hear CEQA matters, and this department is not a designated CEQA department. Thus, the Motion to Relate Cases is denied. All requests for judicial notice are granted.

  • Hearing

    Mar 23, 2017

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SAVE 30TH STREET PARKING VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]

Petitioner also alleges that even if Option A+ were a new project, Respondents' committed themselves to it and violated the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The proposed Supplemental Petition alleges relevant facts because they relate to events that occurred subsequent to the filing of the original petition.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

SAVE 30TH STREET PARKING VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]

Petitioner also alleges that even if Option A+ were a new project, Respondents' committed themselves to it and violated the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The proposed Supplemental Petition alleges relevant facts because they relate to events that occurred subsequent to the filing of the original petition.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

SIERRA CLUB ET AL., V. CITY OF OXNARD ET AL.,

A petition for writ of mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") must be filed within 30 days of after a notice of determination ("NOD") on adoption of an environmental impact report ("EIR"), or 180 days after project approval if there is no NOD filed. (Pub.Res.C.§21167(d).)

  • Hearing

    Apr 17, 2013

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

VENTURA FOOTHILL NEIGHBORS VS. COUNTY OF VENTURA

This court retained jurisdiction over the proceedings until this court determined that the County had complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The order granting peremptory writ of mandate was appealed by the County, and later affirmed by the California Court is of Appeal. Ventura Foothill Neighbors v. County of Ventura (2014) 232 Cal. App. 4th 429. A notice of preparation ("NOP") on the focused supplemental EIR was issued on October 1, 2015.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2018

VENTURA FOOTHILL NEIGHBORS VS. COUNTY OF VENTURA

This court retained jurisdiction over the proceedings until this court determined that the County had complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The order granting peremptory writ of mandate was appealed by the County, and later affirmed by the California Court of Appeal. Ventura Foothill Neighbors v. County of Ventura (2014) 232 Cal. App. 4th 429. A notice of preparation ("NOP") on the focused supplemental EIR was issued on October 1, 2015.

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2017

DOS VIENTOS VS. CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS

arising under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")(Pub.

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2019

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

WHITMAN LIVING TRUST VS CA DEPT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

On 7/31/13, petitioner Whitman Living Trust ("WLT") filed an action under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") , alleging that the categorical exemption relied upon by CDFW to forgo CEQA review violates the requirements of CEQA. The CEQA action was originally filed by WLT in Orange County for unknown venue reasons, and then was transferred by stipulation to Ventura County, where the proposed BSA access road is located.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2014

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITIZENS FOR PROTECTION V. COUNTY OF VTA ET AL.,

On 4/26/11, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors adopted amendments to its "Initial Study Assessment Guidelines" to set the County's standards and procedures in conducting an initial study for non-exempt projects processed under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). If a proposed non-exempt activity is subject to CEQA, a lead agency conducts an initial study to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (14 Cal.Code Regs.§15063.)

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2012

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

PROTECT CEQA ET AL. V. TOWN OF TRUCKEE ET AL.

Robert Tice-Raskin, Judge) has reviewed the briefs of Petitioners Protect CEQA, et al. ('Petitioners'), Respondents Town of Truckee et al. ('Respondents'), and Real Party in Interest J-MAR 1, LLC, in connection with this petition for a writ of mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act ('CEQA'), and issues the tentative ruling set forth below. The court is tentatively inclined to find and/or conclude as follows: 1.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2018

  • Judge

    Dept. 6

  • County

    Nevada County, CA

MSG FORUM LLC VS OVERSIGHT BOARD TO THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO

Brown Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), against Successor Agency to the Inglewood Redevelopment Agency; Oversight Board to the Successor Agency to the Inglewood Redevelopment Agency; and Los Angeles County Second District Consolidated Oversight Board, with Murphy’s Bowl LLC named as the real party in interest (the designated developer of the project). Petitioner alleges that Respondents violated the open-meeting law mandates of the Brown Act (Gov.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

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"), the Coastal Act, and the federal and state constitutions. The City moves for judgment on the pleadings. Discussion A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted where the complaint does not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii).

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

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"), the Coastal Act, and the federal and state constitutions. The City moves for judgment on the pleadings. Discussion A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted where the complaint does not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii).

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

CITIZENS FOR THE REGENTS ROAD BRIDGE INC VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]

The City reviewed the proposed amendments under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and prepared draft and final environmental impact reports ("DEIR" and "FEIR"). On December 16, 2016, the City certified the FEIR and adopted the amendments to the General Plan and University Plan. AR, pp. 9-62 (Resolution R-310813) and pp. 63-65 (Resolution R-310814).

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2018

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

COX V. CITY OF VACAVILLE, ET AL.

Therefore, we request that the City of Vacaville prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. The Director of Community Development prejudicially abused his discretion by failing to prepare an EIR as required by CEQA. This appeal failed to specify what adverse environmental impacts might be caused by the project, nor cited or provided any evidence.

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2019

LISA SEIDMAN ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

“Ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies” are EXPRESSLY EXEMPT from CEQA. (Pub. Res. Code 21080(b)(1).) The “issuance of building permits” is PRESUMPTIVELY MINISTERIAL. (14 CCR 15268(b)(1).) “If, under the applicable substantive law, an agency's approval is ministerial rather than discretionary, EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS UNNECESSARY AND THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), PUB. RESOURCES CODE, § 21000 ET SEQ., DOES NOT APPLY.

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

AARON MONTENEGRO ET AL VS CITY OF EL MONTE ET AL

Resources Code, § 21177, sets out a requirement that a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq., claim be administratively exhausted before forming the basis for a judicial challenge to the agency's actions. Section 21177, subd.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2016

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

The petition alleges that the coastal development permit violates the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), as well as the California Endangered Species Act (“CESA”). Petitioner moves here for leave to file a First Amended Writ Petition and Complaint (“First Amended Petition”). No opposition to the motion was filed with the Court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2018

SODA CANYON GROUP VS. COUNTY OF NAPA, ET AL.

The motion is made in an action for writ of mandate made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The procedural history relevant to the present motion is as follows.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2019

LOWER AUSTIN-KIDD CREEK CONSERVANCY V. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION

They seek information on the intent of Real Party in Interest (hereinafter, “RPI”) Lytton Rancheria of California (hereinafter, “the Tribe”) to comply, or not comply, with the Forest Practices Act (hereinafter, “FPA”), Forest Practice Rules (hereinafter, “FPR”), California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter, “CEQA”), the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (hereinafter, “WQA”), or the Fish & Game Code regarding Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan (hereinafter, “NTMP”), specifically 1-15NTMP-007 SON (Kid Creek

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2019

CITY OF SAUSALITO VS. GOLDEN G

Petitioner/ Plaintiff the City of Sausalito (“City”) has sued the District for violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the public trust doctrine and three claims for declaratory relief. The District’s special motion to strike is against three causes of action: cause of action one for violation of CEQA, cause of action two for violation of the public trust doctrine and cause of action five for declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Apr 20, 2017

MICHELI V. CITY OF FRESNO

App. 4th 768, a Native American Tribe sought a writ to overturn approval of a solid waste facility by the government, on the basis that it violated the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) found at Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. It noted that “Section 1021.5 codifies the private attorney general doctrine adopted by the California Supreme Court in Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal. 3d 25.” (Id. at 775.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

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.