Search for: "Arthur F. Coon" Results 281 - 300 of 471
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jun 2013, 11:46 am by Arthur F. Coon
In a lengthy published opinion filed May 21, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal reversed a judgment granting a writ of mandate and upheld as legally adequate under CEQA the Marin Municipal Water District’s EIR for development and construction of a desalination plant in Marin County. [read post]
7 Aug 2023, 11:22 am by Arthur F. Coon
In an opinion filed June 28, 2023, and later ordered published on July 25, 2023, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 5) affirmed a judgment granting a writ of mandate setting aside (1) the City of Los Angeles’ (City) approval of a 10-story hotel project (with three levels of subterranean parking) to be located on a half-acre site in the Hollywood Community Plan area, and (2) the City’s accompanying determination that the hotel project was exempt under CEQA’s Class 32… [read post]
19 Dec 2016, 8:36 am by Arthur F. Coon
In an opinion filed December 7, and later ordered published on December 16, 2016, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment denying a writ petition on the “single legal issue” whether plaintiffs were entitled under Public Resources Code § 21151(c) (and a municipal code section with essentially the same content) to an appeal of a planning commission’s “substantial conformance review” (SCR) determination to the city council. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 3:09 pm by Arthur F. Coon
The same appellate panel that decided the controversial Berkeley Hillside Preservation case (which is currently in the briefing stage of Supreme Court review) rendered another significant categorical exemption decision in its recently published opinion in Robinson v. [read post]
16 Jan 2020, 1:39 pm by Arthur F. Coon
CEQA’s Class 32 categorical exemption for “infill development” applies to proposed developments within city limits on sites of five or fewer acres substantially surrounded by urban uses, where the site has no habitat value for special status species, can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services, and the project would not have significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts. [read post]