Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B294732
|
Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District
Agency's choice of using near-peak baseline was sound because it followed the practice of the federal Environmental Protection Agency. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Wiley | Apr. 9, 2020 |
B293327
|
Coalition for an Equitable Westlake/Macarthur Park v. City of Los Angeles
Plaintiff's California Environmental Quality Act claims were barred because they were filed more than 30 days after Notice of Determination. |
Environmental Law |
|
C. Moor | Apr. 6, 2020 |
B287079
|
Mountainlands Conservancy, LLC v. California Coastal Commission
California Coastal Commission certification of local coastal program for Santa Monica Mountains conformed with Public Resources Code Section 30242 because land was unsuitable for agriculture. |
Environmental Law |
|
E. Grimes | Apr. 3, 2020 |
F077656
|
Modification: King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern
Mitigation measure for project's significant impacts to water supplies inappropriately deferred formulation of the measures and thus violated California Environmental Quality Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
D. Franson | Mar. 25, 2020 |
B292246
|
Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills
Petitioners were not barred from recovering attorney's fees based on failing to strictly comply with California Environmental Quality Act's 10-day notice requirement. |
Environmental Law |
|
L. Zelon | Mar. 19, 2020 |
C076888
|
Environmental Council of Sacramento v. County of Sacramento
County's description in Environmental Impact Report was legally adequate because it contained good faith efforts and was not required to assess future developments. |
Environmental Law |
|
V. Raye | Mar. 4, 2020 |
F077656
|
King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern
Mitigation measure for project's significant impacts to water supplies inappropriately deferred formulation of the measures and thus violated California Environmental Quality Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
D. Franson | Mar. 3, 2020 |
A154448
|
Modification: Sturgell v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
A sale and transfer of Dungeness Crab Vessel permit approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife rendered the appeal reinstating respondent's permit moot. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Richman | Jan. 6, 2020 |
C080342
|
Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist.
Mitigation measures that aim to detect greenhouse gas emissions are adequate to ensure energy facilities adhere to their emission limitation commitments; detection is sufficient to deter non-compliance. |
Environmental Law |
|
C. Blease | Dec. 26, 2019 |
18-35982
|
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Wheeler
Constructive submission found where state failed over long period of time to submit 'total maximum daily loads' under Clean Water Act, and clearly and unambiguously decided not to submit any TMDL. |
Environmental Law |
|
M. McKeown | Dec. 23, 2019 |
A152988
|
Modification: United Artists Theater Circuit v. Regional Water Quality Control Board
Prior owner may be named in cleanup order as one who 'permitted' discharge if it knew or should have known that lessee's activity presented a reasonable possibility of hazardous waste discharge. |
Environmental Law |
|
M. Simons | Dec. 20, 2019 |
D074474
|
Holden v. City of San Diego
City reasonably concluded that project is compatible with General Plan and Community Plan; thus, project was exempt from CEQA requirements. |
Environmental Law |
|
C. Aaron | Dec. 17, 2019 |
A154448
|
Sturgell v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
A sale and transfer of Dungeness Crab Vessel permit approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife rendered the appeal reinstating respondent's permit moot. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Richman | Dec. 10, 2019 |
18-55481
|
U.S. v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
42 U.S.C. Section 7412 authorizes the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board to investigate not just an oil refinery's release of hazardous materials, but prospective damage as well. |
Environmental Law |
|
P. Curiam (9th Cir.) | Dec. 10, 2019 |
A152988
|
United Artists Theater Circuit v. Regional Water Quality Control Board
Prior owner may be named in cleanup order as one who 'permitted' discharge if it knew or should have known that lessee's activity presented a reasonable possibility of hazardous waste discharge. |
Environmental Law |
|
M. Simons | Dec. 3, 2019 |
17-72260
|
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Petition for review pursuant to Toxic Substances Control Act granted only as to claim that EPA's exclusion of legacy uses and associated disposals contradicted TSCA's statutory definition of 'conditions of use.' |
Environmental Law |
|
M. Friedland | Nov. 15, 2019 |
C086745
|
Atlantic Richfield v. Central Valley Regional Water Quality
A parent company may have direct liability for hazardous waste caused by its subsidiary if it is found to control the activities responsible for the waste. |
Environmental Law |
|
M. Butz | Oct. 16, 2019 |
A155606
|
Maacama Watershed Alliance v. County of Sonoma
Opinions of local residents, based largely on views of different structure, did not constitute substantial evidence that winery will have a significant aesthetic impact; thus, judgment was affirmed. |
Environmental Law |
|
A. Tucher | Oct. 9, 2019 |
C087142
|
Chico Advocates for a Responsible Economy v. City of Chico
Likely loss of "close and convenient shopping" was not an environmental issue requiring review under CEQA, and the City of Chico's reasons for its decisions were not clearly inadequate or unsupported. |
Environmental Law |
|
P. Krause | Oct. 4, 2019 |
17-55647
|
Protect Our Communities Foundation v. LaCounte
New information relating to adverse impact to golden eagles from wind turbines was not significant under National Environmental Protection Act because it merely confirmed concerns that environmental impact statement already considered. |
Environmental Law |
|
R. Gould | Sep. 24, 2019 |
D074132
|
Lindstrom v. Cal. Coastal Commission
California Coastal Commission's special conditions on approval of coastal development permit were generally acceptable, but special condition 3.b was overbroad and unreasonable as drafted so remand was necessary. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Irion | Sep. 23, 2019 |
A154917
|
The Lake Norconian Club Foundation v. Dept. of Corrections
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was under no statutory duty to maintain former hotel it owned, so failure to act was not correctible by writ of mandate. |
Environmental Law |
|
S. Pollak | Sep. 16, 2019 |
C071785
|
County of Butte v. Dept. of Water Resources
Plaintiffs cannot challenge aspects of the Federal Power Act's Settlement Agreement process in state court, and 'Friends of the Eel River v. North Coast Railroad Authority' is inapplicable. |
Environmental Law |
|
C. Blease | Sep. 9, 2019 |
B282319
|
Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com v. City of Los Angeles
Conceptual development scenarios in environmental impact report did not qualify as a stable or finite proposed project, and such nebulous descriptions prejudiced public participation in the CEQA process. |
Environmental Law |
|
A. Jones | Aug. 26, 2019 |
S238563
|
Union of Medical Marijuana Patients v. City of San Diego
Amending zoning regulations as part of ordinance regulating medical marijuana dispensaries was capable of causing indirect physical environmental changes, so the ordinance was a project necessitating CEQA analysis. |
Environmental Law |
|
T. Cantil-Sakauye | Aug. 20, 2019 |
B249835
|
Hubbard v. Coastal Commission
Despite intentional misrepresentations in coastal development permit application, substantial evidence supported the Coastal Commission's determination that complete information would not have changed its ruling on the application. |
Environmental Law |
|
T. Willhite | Aug. 2, 2019 |
B285553
|
Hollywoodians Encouraging Rental Opportunities v. City of L.A.
City properly concluded that hotel project would have no impact on population and housing because it would not displace any tenants or eliminate any rental units; thus, CEQA claim failed. |
Environmental Law |
|
L. Edmon | Jul. 23, 2019 |
17-16760
|
Center for Biological Diversity v. Ilano
Designation of landscape-scale areas under Healthy Forests Restoration Act does not trigger National Environmental Policy Act analysis; thus, summary judgment in favor of defendant affirmed. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Nguyen | Jun. 25, 2019 |
C083913
|
Center for Biological Diversity v. CA Dept. of Conservation
Public Resources Code Section 3161(b)(3)(B)(ii) reflects legislative intent to limit scope of environmental impact report to well stimulation treatments only; thus, appellant's writ of mandate petition properly denied. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Renner | Jun. 19, 2019 |
17-16560
|
Amended Opinion: Sierra Club v. USFWS
U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Services and the National Marine Fisheries Service's April 2014 draft jeopardy opinion was pre-decisional and deliberative; thus, exempt from Freedom of Information Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
T. Berg | May 31, 2019 |