Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A147498
|
The Committee for Re-Evaluation of the T-Line Loop v. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (Mitchell Engineering)
Substantial evidence supports City and County of San Francisco's determination that no further environmental impact report was required to complete 'T-Line Loop' light rail project. |
Environmental Law |
|
Dec. 26, 2016 | |
D069922
|
San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego (Sunroad Enterprises)
Challengers of development project not entitled to appeal substantial conformance review decision to city council. |
Environmental Law |
|
Dec. 18, 2016 | |
C079614
|
East Sacramento Partnership for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (Encore McKinley Village LLC)
City of Sacramento's certification and approval of residential project overturned where environmental impact report was deficient on issue of traffic impacts. |
Environmental Law |
|
Dec. 7, 2016 | |
14-56837
|
Japanese Village v. FTA
Consideration and implementation of temporary relocation among other noise and vibration mitigation measures during light rail construction meets mitigation burden established under NEPA. |
Environmental Law |
|
Dec. 6, 2016 | |
A148865
|
Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment
Changes due to impact of stadium plan for Golden State Warriors in line with predictions made in 1998 environmental impact report or meet general CEQA guidelines. |
Environmental Law |
|
Nov. 30, 2016 | |
S214855
|
Dept. of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates (County of Los Angeles)
State permitting conditions relating to storm drain systems are not federally mandated; as such, local government agencies entitled to reimbursement from state for associated costs. |
Environmental Law |
|
Nov. 20, 2016 | |
C079614
|
East Sacramento Partnership for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (Encore McKinley Village LLC)
City of Sacramento's certification and approval of residential project overturned where environmental impact report was deficient on issue of traffic impacts. |
Environmental Law |
|
Nov. 8, 2016 | |
14-15998
|
Sierra Club v. TRPA
Environmental impact analysis of planning update adopted by Tahoe Regional Planning Agency may be region-wide, localized impact considerations not required. |
Environmental Law |
|
Nov. 2, 2016 | |
15-55562
|
NRDC, et al v. County of Los Angeles, et al
New storm-water runoff permit with safe harbor provision does not moot injunctive relief previously rendered against violators of previous permit; complexity and expense of new permit's requirements makes future violations reasonably likely to recur. |
Environmental Law |
|
Oct. 31, 2016 | |
14-35806
|
Alaska Oil and Gas Ass’n v. Pritzker
NMFS listing of polar seal population as endangered species based on predictive 100-year model of climate change not an 'arbitrary and capricious' decision. |
Environmental Law |
|
Oct. 24, 2016 | |
13-36078
|
ONDA v. Jewell
Challengers to wind turbine project in Oregon win partial victory due to failure to consider project's impact on sage grouse bird during winter months. |
Environmental Law |
|
Oct. 20, 2016 | |
D068185
|
Union of Medical Marijuana Patients Inc. v. City of San Diego (California Coastal Commission)
City's ordinance regulating medical marijuana businesses is not 'project' within meaning of CEQA; therefore, city properly determined environmental analysis not required before enactment. |
Environmental Law |
|
Oct. 16, 2016 | |
F070988
|
Citizens for Ceres v. City of Ceres
Recovery of cost of preparing administrative record in CEQA action not limited to city, where real party in interest is also prevailing party under statute. |
Environmental Law |
|
Oct. 4, 2016 | |
B264434
|
Kalnel Gardens LLC v. City of Los Angeles
Developer unsuccessful in overturning city's rejection of proposed Venice housing project that violates California Coastal Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
Oct. 2, 2016 | |
S214061
|
Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District
In CEQA action challenging approval of facilities improvement plan, community college district wins reversal due to appellate court's error in applying new project test. |
Environmental Law |
|
Sep. 19, 2016 | |
F070988
|
Citizens for Ceres v. City of Ceres
Recovery of cost of preparing administrative record in CEQA action not limited to city, where real party in interest is also prevailing party under statute. |
Environmental Law |
|
Sep. 13, 2016 | |
A135335
|
California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Air quality management district does not have to conduct environmental review before publishing new thresholds for determining impacts of future projects. |
Environmental Law |
|
Sep. 12, 2016 | |
14-72327
|
Bahr v. U.S. EPA
Completed measures to meet national primary ambient air quality standards do not constitute contingency measures for to 'make further progress' under Clean Air Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
Sep. 12, 2016 | |
14-72553
|
Helping Hand Tools v. USEPA
EPA grant of PSD to project intended to burn surplus lumber for heating purposes appropriate as use of solar power or increased natural gas would 'redefine' project. |
Environmental Law |
|
Sep. 5, 2016 | |
H040789
|
Bay Area Clean Environment Inc. v. Santa Clara County (Lehigh Southwest Cement Co.)
Challenge to county's approval of reclamation plan amendment relating to surface mining operation unavailing, as county complied with applicable environmental laws. |
Environmental Law |
|
Sep. 1, 2016 | |
A145573
|
Coastal Hills Rural Preservation v. County of Sonoma (Petranker)
Existing tents built as part of printing facilities approved with a mitigated negative declaration not "new projects" under CEQA. |
Environmental Law |
|
Sep. 1, 2016 | |
S214855
|
Dept. of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates (County of Los Angeles)
State permitting conditions relating to storm drain systems are not federally mandated; as such, local government agencies entitled to reimbursement from state for associated costs. |
Environmental Law |
|
Aug. 29, 2016 | |
14-15836
|
Center for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Management
Incidental take statements do not apply to plant species under Environmental Act as a 'take;' can only apply to fish and wildlife. |
Environmental Law |
|
Aug. 17, 2016 | |
H041563
|
Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle v. City of San Jose
In case challenging city's determination that wooden railroad bridge is not 'historical resource,' application of incorrect standard of judicial review results in reversal and remand. |
Environmental Law |
|
Aug. 16, 2016 | |
A135335
|
California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Receptor thresholds adopted by Bay Area air quality public agency not permissible as 'matter of course' in evaluating proposed receptor projects. |
Environmental Law |
|
Aug. 16, 2016 | |
A143634
|
Communities for a Better Environment v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Kinder Morgan Material Services LLC)
Action properly dismissed because discovery rule does not postpone running of statute of limitations under Public Resources Code Section 21167(d). |
Environmental Law |
|
Aug. 12, 2016 | |
B245131
|
Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Historical practice, legislative guidance, and practicality suggests that trial court should supervise any writs of mandate issued regarding CEQA compliance in 'Newhall' matter. |
Environmental Law |
|
Aug. 11, 2016 | |
15-35103
|
Glacier Fish Co. v. Pritzker
Cather-processor coop permit constitutes limited access privilege, allowing NMFS to levy fee as part of cost recovery program against corporate members of conservation cooperative. |
Environmental Law |
|
Aug. 11, 2016 | |
15-35228
|
Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals Ltd.
Smelter not liable for CERCLA cleanup costs to remedy natural resources damages caused by 'aerial depositions' of hazardous substances near US-Canada border. |
Environmental Law |
|
Jul. 28, 2016 | |
B258638
|
Walters v. City of Redondo Beach
Proposed car wash falls into category of projects exempted from California Environmental Quality Act, presenting no unusual circumstances to area as defined by exemption exceptions. |
Environmental Law |
|
Jul. 22, 2016 |