Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A166221
|
East Oakland Stadium Alliance, LLC v. City of Oakland
Environmental impact report's assumption that displaced overnight truck parking could relocate from Howard Terminal to nearby lots within the Port of Oakland was supported by substantial evidence. |
Environmental Law |
|
T. Brown | Apr. 3, 2023 |
21-71170
|
City of Los Angeles v. Federal Aviation Administration
Environmental impact statement was deficient because its construction noise analysis was based on faulty assumption that multiple types of construction equipment would not operate simultaneously. |
Environmental Law |
|
S. Higginson | Mar. 30, 2023 |
B306658
|
Modification: Pacific Palisades Residents Assn., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
Senior living home project in the Pacific Palisades was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act because it was built in an urbanized area with no requirement for architectural uniformity. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Wiley | Mar. 29, 2023 |
C093351
|
California Manufacturers & Technology Assoc. v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment could use nonadverse health effects in assessing and setting public health goal water contamination numbers. |
Environmental Law |
|
A. Hoch | Mar. 24, 2023 |
C093513
|
Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Bd.
State Water Board's adoption of order allowing the anonymization of management practice implementation and data was proper under the rule and commentary of key element four of the Nonpoint Source Policy. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Renner | Mar. 21, 2023 |
A165451
|
Modification: Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of Cal.
Environmental Impact Report for the University of California, Berkeley's proposed housing project requiring the demolition of People's Park, a historic site, was deficient because it failed to provide project alternatives. |
Environmental Law |
|
G. Burns | Mar. 17, 2023 |
B306658
|
Pacific Palisades Residents Assn., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
Senior living home project in the Pacific Palisades was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act because it was built in an urbanized area with no requirement for architectural uniformity. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Wiley | Mar. 10, 2023 |
B309225
|
Spencer v. City of Palos Verdes Estates
City of Palos Verdes Estates was liable under the California Coastal Act for wood hangout built on their property by group of self-appointed local guardians of a surf spot. |
Environmental Law |
|
L. Rubin | Mar. 1, 2023 |
A165451
|
Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of Cal.
Environmental Impact Report for the University of California, Berkeley's proposed housing project requiring the demolition of People's Park, a historic site, was deficient because it failed to provide project alternatives. |
Environmental Law |
|
G. Burns | Feb. 28, 2023 |
20-70272
|
Amended Opinion: Center for Community Action v. Federal Aviation Administration
Petitioners seeking review of a Federal Aviation Administration Final Environmental Assessment finding bear the burden of showing missteps on the part of the FAA. |
Environmental Law |
|
Feb. 27, 2023 | |
21-16958
|
American Rivers v. American Petroleum Institute
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, district courts must first find Clean Water Act rule changes unlawful in order to vacate the rule. |
Environmental Law |
|
M. Friedland | Feb. 22, 2023 |
B320586
|
Arcadians for Environmental Preservation v. City of Arcadia
Environmental organization's environmental impact report and general references to potential environmental impacts did not satisfy its exhaustion requirement for CEQA challenge to next-door neighbor's house expansion. |
Environmental Law |
|
D. Perluss | Feb. 17, 2023 |
G060850
|
IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine
City erred in approving project development based on addendum to a program environmental impact report as insufficient evidence supported its finding on the project's gas emissions and the project did not qualify for an exemption. |
Environmental Law |
|
E. Moore | Feb. 8, 2023 |
21-35121
|
Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, et al.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's denial of a petition to amend Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan was unreviewable because the Plan was not an action "from which legal consequences will flow." |
Environmental Law |
|
A. Hurwitz | Jan. 24, 2023 |
C096617A
|
Save Our Capitol v. Department of General Services
Because the Historic Capital project description significantly changed from the recirculated draft environmental impact report to the final EIR, it ran afoul of CEQA. |
Environmental Law |
|
H. Hull | Jan. 20, 2023 |
19-72109
|
Center for Food Safety v. Regan
Where vacatur might cause more environmental harm, remand was appropriate for the Environmental Protection Agency to address and complete environmental law requirements. |
Environmental Law |
|
K. Lee | Dec. 22, 2022 |
A163192
|
Save North Petaluma River and Wetlands v. City of Petaluma
Environmental impact report properly analyzed impacts to special status species because it was based on facts and expert opinion and amply demonstrated the analytic route from such evidence to environmentally significant action. |
Environmental Law |
|
C. Fujisaki | Dec. 15, 2022 |
F082604
|
American Chemistry Council v. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control
The Department of Toxic Substances Control has authority to list spray foam systems as a priority product that may be considered a chemical of concern under the Green Chemistry law. |
Environmental Law |
|
B. Hill | Dec. 14, 2022 |
A164629
|
Saint Ignatius Neighborhood Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco
High school's project to install 90-foot lights in its stadium was not categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act review. |
Environmental Law |
|
S. Pollak | Dec. 8, 2022 |
C093124
|
Modification: Atlantic Richfield Co. v. California Regional Water Quality
Substantial evidence supported the conclusion that a parent company exercised eccentric control over mining operations and thus was directly liable for pollution as an operator of a polluting facility owned by a subsidiary. |
Environmental Law |
|
A. Hoch | Dec. 7, 2022 |
C096617
|
Save Our Capitol v. Dept. of General Services
Changes made to the exterior design of a historic building in the project's final environmental impact report rendered the project description unstable in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
H. Hull | Dec. 7, 2022 |
C093124
|
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. California Regional Water Quality
Substantial evidence supported the conclusion that a parent company exercised eccentric control over mining operations and thus was directly liable for pollution as an operator of a polluting facility owned by a subsidiary. |
Environmental Law |
|
A. Hoch | Nov. 16, 2022 |
A162524
|
Modification: Athletics Investment Group v. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control
New Hazardous Waste Control Law provision did not require the Department of Toxic Substances Control to rescind a certification for treated metal-shredder waste as nonhazardous. |
Environmental Law |
|
A. Tucher | Oct. 24, 2022 |
20-35411
|
Amended Opinion: 350 Montana v. Haaland
Department of Interior's finding of no significant environmental impact required more analysis than potential greenhouse gas emissions being "minor" relative to other global emissions sources. |
Environmental Law |
|
M. Christen | Oct. 17, 2022 |
20-70272
|
Amended Opinion: Center for Community Action v. Federal Aviation Administration
Petitioners seeking review of a Federal Aviation Administration Final Environmental Assessment finding bear the burden of showing missteps on the part of the FAA. |
Environmental Law |
|
E. Siler | Oct. 12, 2022 |
A162524
|
Athletics Investment Group v. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control
New Hazardous Waste Control Law provision did not require the Department of Toxic Substances Control to rescind a certification for treated metal-shredder waste as nonhazardous. |
Environmental Law |
|
A. Tucher | Oct. 4, 2022 |
A163346
|
Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. v. Sream, Inc.
In a Prop 65 case, a bong that could be used to smoke marijuana did not directly expose individuals to cancer-causing chemicals. |
Environmental Law |
|
C. Mayfield | Sep. 28, 2022 |
21-55479
|
San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper v. Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District
Where statute allowed for dam's construction "for other purposes," it could be read harmoniously with the Endangered Species Act to allow water release for endangered fish's reproductive migration. |
Environmental Law |
|
S. Thomas | Sep. 26, 2022 |
20-72432
|
California State Water Resources Control Board v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
California Water Resources Control Board was not engaged in coordinated effort with hydroelectric water project applicants to delay federal certification because it merely acquiesced to the applicants' decisions. |
Environmental Law |
|
M. Friedland | Aug. 5, 2022 |
A162590
|
County of Mono v. City of Los Angeles
City's decision to reduce the water allocated for irrigation was a continuing part of an earlier, ongoing project covered by leases and not a new project subject to CEQA requirements. |
Environmental Law |
|
T. Brown | Jul. 28, 2022 |