Fear Not Law Articles: Madrigal v. City of Huntington Beach

Madrigal v

Madrigal v. City of Huntington Beach

Filed 1/31/07 Madrigal v. City of Huntington Beach CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

MERRILEE MADRIGAL et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,

Defendant and Respondent;

LANDSCAPE BY HIRO, INC., et al.,

Real Parties in Interest and
Respondents.

G036991

(Super. Ct. No. 05CC00029)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Stephen J. Sundvold, Judge. Affirmed. Appellants' request for judicial notice. Granted.

Law Office of Rose M. Zoia, Rose M. Zoia; Briggs Law Corporation and Cory J. Briggs for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney, and Scott F. Field, Assistant City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent.

Latham & Watkins, Paul N. Singarella, Daniel P. Brunton, Joshua T. Bledsoe; Donald A. Redd and Douglas P. Ditonto for Real Party in Interest and Respondent Southern California Edison.

Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart and M. Lois Bobak for Real Party in Interest and Respondent Landscape by Hiro, Inc.

* * *

Introduction

We consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the City of Huntington Beach (the City) properly issued a grading permit without conducting an environmental review of the permit's impact, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). â€

Description	Court consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the City of Huntington Beach (the City) properly issued a grading permit without conducting an environmental review of the permit's impact, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, S 21000 et seq.). "The fundamental purpose of CEQA is to ensure 'that environmental considerations play a significant role in governmental decision-making' [citation]." (Fullerton Joint Union High School Dist. v. State Bd. of Education (1982) 32 Cal.3d 779, 797.) "CEQA must be interpreted to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of statutory language. [Citation.]" (Day v. City of Glendale (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 817, 823.) The judgment is affirmed.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.