Search for: "Arthur F. Coon"
Results 421 - 440
of 450
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Oct 2021, 4:44 pm
In a 53-page published opinion filed October 8, 2021, the Fourth District Court of Appeal mostly affirmed, but reversed in part, a judgment in a CEQA action challenging two sets of projects of the City of San Diego to underground overhead utility wires in several neighborhoods. [read post]
9 Sep 2016, 12:17 pm
In a published opinion filed August 31, 2016, the Sixth Appellate District Court of Appeal rejected claims under CEQA and the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (“SMARA”; Pub. [read post]
27 Nov 2018, 12:27 pm
In an opinion filed October 19, and later ordered published on November 15, 2018, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment upholding Plumas County’s First comprehensive update of its 1984 general plan, and rejecting arguments that the update violated the California Timberland Productivity Act of 1982 (the “Timberland Act” or “Act”) and that the related EIR violated CEQA. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 3:22 pm
In a decision filed December 2, and later ordered published on December 30, 2014, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the Mendocino County Superior Court’s judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate challenging a Nonindustrial Timber Management Plan (NTMP) for 615 acres adjacent to Gualala. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 2:03 pm
In a mostly-published 95-page opinion filed July 15, 2013, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s judgment and directed issuance of a writ of mandate setting aside Resolution 09-31 and two executive orders of the California Air Resource Board (CARB) approving Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) regulations promulgated to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. [read post]
2 Dec 2015, 3:48 pm
In a 5-2 decision filed November 30, 2015, the California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal which had upheld the EIS/EIR for the controversial Newhall Ranch development project. [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 5:18 pm
In an exceptionally thorough and well-reasoned opinion, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying a writ petition challenging respondent 14th District Agricultural Association’s (District) approval of a rodeo event to be held at the Santa Cruz County Fairground pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines’ Class 23 categorical exemption. [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 4:44 pm
On July 13, 2017, the California Supreme Court rendered a 6-1 decision holding that the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG) 2011 EIR for its Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) issued pursuant to SB 375 did not violate CEQA “by declining to explicitly engage in an analysis of the consistency of projected 2050 greenhouse gas emissions with the goals in [a 2005] executive order [the “2005 EO”]. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 2:25 pm
In a published decision filed September 17, 2015, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment granting a writ of mandate and finding that a proposed land exchange agreement was not statutorily exempt from CEQA review. [read post]
7 Jul 2022, 11:22 am
On March 7, 2022, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 4) filed its published opinion in Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, et al. v. [read post]
8 Feb 2022, 10:29 am
In an opinion filed on December 29, 2021, and later ordered published on January 25, 2022, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 4) affirmed a judgment upholding the City of Newark’s (City) use of Government Code § 65457’s CEQA exemption for a 469-lot residential subdivision on land adjacent to San Francisco Bay. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 12:10 pm
A development project’s potential noise impacts can implicate complex and technical issues under CEQA, particularly where those impacts are asserted, in litigation by project opponents challenging a negative declaration, as the sole basis an EIR should have been required. [read post]
4 Apr 2024, 1:50 pm
In a partially published opinion filed March 29, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 4) rejected contentions that the pre-judgment completion of construction of a shooting range mooted a CEQA challenge to the project; it held an effective remedy in the form of various mitigation measures alleged in the CEQA petition remained available and reversed the trial court’s judgment entered in favor of respondents and real party after sustaining their demurrers and granting their motions to… [read post]
23 Feb 2022, 11:28 am
In a sprawling, 123-page published opinion filed on February 14, 2022, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed in part, and reversed in part, judgments in consolidated CEQA actions challenging Placer County’s EIR for its approval of a specific plan and rezoning to permit residential and commercial development and preserve forest land in the Martis Valley near Truckee and Lake Tahoe. [read post]
3 Mar 2023, 10:24 am
In a published opinion filed February 24, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 5) reversed a judgment upholding the adequacy of the EIR for the University of California, Berkeley’s long range campus development plan (“LRDP”) and a controversial housing development project at the historic People’s Park. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 2:08 pm
In an important published opinion filed February 16, 2024, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. [read post]
12 Feb 2007, 8:09 am
., 230 F.3d 286, 295 (7th Cir. 2000). [read post]
7 Aug 2022, 5:48 pm
In a 5-2 opinion filed August 1, 2022, a divided California Supreme Court held the Federal Power Act (“FPA”; 16 U.S.C. [read post]
21 Feb 2023, 1:21 pm
” (Citing CEQA Guidelines, § 15168(c)(2) [“[i]f the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, [it] can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document [is] required. [read post]
19 Sep 2017, 3:13 pm
AB 890 (Medina – D), recently sent to Governor Brown for action by October 15, seeks to amend Government Code § 65867.5 and to add §§ 65363 and 65850.10 to prevent development agreements and certain types of land use planning and zoning legislation from being enacted by local voter-sponsored land use initiatives. [read post]
