The City of Napa (City) approved revisions to the housing and land use elements in its General Plan. Upon concluding that the added revisions would have no environmental effects not already identified and mitigated in the EIR prepared for its original general plan from 1998, the City filed a Notice of Determination (NOD). Since the

The Chawanakee Unified School District (Petitioner) filed a petition for writ of mandate against the County of Madera’s (County) approval of an EIR for a development project, arguing that the approval did not comply with CEQA. The trial court denied the petition. Petitioner appealed the ruling to the Fifth District Court of Appeal, which reversed

The City of Chula Vista (City) approved a proposed Target retail store in reliance on a mitigated negative declaration (MND). Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the MND and claiming that the project may have significant impacts relating to hazardous materials, air pollution, particulate matter and ozone, and greenhouse gas emissions. The

Petitioner challenged the City of Placentia’s (City) EIR for a proposed railroad grade separation project, claiming that the EIR was not sufficient. The trial court dismissed the case. The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal. The Petitioner argued that because the City did not claim the project was exempt from CEQA and prepared

Petitioner challenged the City of Oakland’s (City) EIR for a mixed-use project claiming it failed to provide meaningful analysis of seismic impacts under CEQA. The trial court issued a writ of mandate ordering the City to compose a new EIR. The City submitted a revised EIR which the trial court found adequate, discharging the writ

In 1994, the City of San Diego (City) certified an EIR and approved a 665-acre mixed-use development plan. In 2008, the City was approached by a developer who wished to build condominiums on the last remaining open space within that area. The City prepared a water supply assessment (WSA) and an addendum to the 1994

The City of Santa Clara (City) approved a long and detailed “term sheet” for the development of a professional football stadium. The Petitioner challenged the approvals claiming the “term sheet” constituted approval of a project as defined by CEQA. The trial court found for the City, holding that no EIR was required because approval of

Petitioner challenged the City of Malibu’s (City) approval of the Legacy Park project, a water treatment plant designed to reduce pollution and protect water quality at nearby beaches. After an unsuccessful appeal to the City Council, and denial of a writ at trial, the Petitioner appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal arguing that

Petitioner retained the law firm Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger (Shute) to challenge the City of Newport Beach’s (City) plan to a build a highway on its land. The City responded with a motion to disqualify the law firm, arguing that it was a current client of Shute thus creating a conflict of interest. The trial

In a case involving a mixed-use development project on a university campus, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held the trial court acted in error by failing to issue a writ following the entry of judgment. If a trial court finds that a decision of a public agency has been made without complying with CEQA,