News & Analysis as of

California Environmental Quality Act Substantial Evidence

Downey Brand LLP

Are Your CEQA Thresholds Supported by Substantial Evidence? Fourth District Rules San Diego County’s Thresholds of Significance...

Downey Brand LLP on

In Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. County of San Diego (2025) 109 Cal. App.5th 1257, the Fourth District Court of Appeal invalidated two thresholds of significance adopted by the County of San Diego (“County”) that in...more

Downey Brand LLP

Trial Court’s Jurisdiction over CEQA Case is Lost after Writ is Satisfied by Rescission of Project Approvals

Downey Brand LLP on

In McCann v. City of San Diego (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 284 (McCann II), the Fourth District Court of Appeal held the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to discharge a writ of mandate. The writ was issued for the...more

Downey Brand LLP

Court of Appeal Finds Substantial Evidence Supports City’s Use of Statutory Exemption to Approve a Zoning Overlay District For...

Downey Brand LLP on

In Lucas v. City of Pomona (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 508, the Second District of the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision that the City of Pomona’s (“City”) application of the statutory exemption under CEQA...more

Downey Brand LLP

Statue’s Status is History: City Prevails in CEQA Challenge to Removal of Junipero Serra Statue

Downey Brand LLP on

The Second District of the Court of Appeal on June 8 ordered publication of its May 12 opinion affirming the denial of a writ of mandate that challenged the City of Buenaventura’s removal and relocation of a statue of...more

Downey Brand LLP

Privately Owned Public Utility Not Required to Comply With CEQA in Eminent Domain Action

Downey Brand LLP on

In Robinson v. Superior Court (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1144, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that Southern California Edison (SCE), as an investor-owned public utility, was not required to comply with CEQA in an eminent...more

Downey Brand LLP

Oakland and the A’s Prevail on All but One Minor Issue in Ballpark EIR Case; Wind Mitigation Found Inadequate

Downey Brand LLP on

In E. Oakland Stadium Alliance v. City of Oakland (Mar. 30, 2023, No. A166221) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 240], the First District Court of Appeal concluded that the EIR prepared for the proposed Oakland A’s...more

Downey Brand LLP

First District Invalidates Garaventa Hills EIR for Improperly Classifying No-Project Alternative of Preserving Residentially-Zoned...

Downey Brand LLP on

On March 30, 2022, the First District Court of Appeal published its opinion in Save the Hill Group v. City of Livermore (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1092, invalidating an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Garaventa Hills...more

Downey Brand LLP

Residents’ Comments About Existing Fire Hazards Do Not Constitute Substantial Evidence of a New Project’s Impacts Under CEQA

Downey Brand LLP on

In June 2021, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the County of El Dorado’s (“County”) mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) for a bridge construction project against complaints that the project’s construction would...more

Perkins Coie

University Campus Was Not an Illusory Element of Project Under CEQA

Perkins Coie on

The court of appeal found the EIR for a master planned community sufficient because it adequately described and analyzed impacts of the proposed project, which included a university, and was not required to consider the...more

Perkins Coie

Power Plant EIR Defeated By Inadequate Responses to Commenters’ Proposed Mitigation Measures

Perkins Coie on

An EIR that did not squarely respond to detailed comments recommending additional mitigation measures has been held not to comply with CEQA. Covington v. Greater Basin., 3d Dist. Court of Appeal Case No. C080342 (certified...more

Allen Matkins

Unsubstantiated or Speculative Expert Opinion Is Not Substantial Evidence of a Significant Environmental Impact

Allen Matkins on

Unsubstantiated opinions from purported experts are not enough to require preparation of an EIR, the court of appeal recently held in Maacama Watershed Alliance v. County of Sonoma, 40 Cal. App. 5th 1007 (2019), a case in...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Fall Season Results in California Coastal Commission Victories

This Fall, the California Coastal Commission (“Commission”) was handed down two significant victories, further cementing its authority and jurisdiction within California coastal zones. These cases demonstrate that, in certain...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

California Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of De Novo and Substantial Evidence Standards Of Review In CEQA Cases

In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (S219783), the California Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that the substantial evidence standard of review does not always apply when a lead agency prepares an environmental impact...more

13 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide