Search for: "Arthur F. Coon"
Results 181 - 200
of 456
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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 Nov 2018, 2:04 pm
The Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. 1) held in a published opinion filed October 24, 2018, that CEQA Guidelines § 15164 validly establishes an addendum process that is consistent with the CEQA statute, implementing and filling gaps in Public Resources Code § 21166. [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 3:45 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
8 Oct 2018, 2:20 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
1 Oct 2018, 2:28 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
28 Sep 2018, 4:26 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
19 Sep 2018, 12:40 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
12 Sep 2018, 1:52 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
7 Sep 2018, 1:15 pm
In relevant part, the amendments created a new “Subarea F” within the SNAP. [read post]
27 Aug 2018, 4:37 pm
In a lengthy published opinion filed on August 22, 2018, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 4) affirmed the trial court’s judgment rejecting various CEQA challenges to the City of San Francisco’s (“City”) Program EIR analyzing the environmental impacts of its 2009 General Plan Housing Element, which it adopted on June 29, 2011. [read post]
20 Aug 2018, 11:14 am
It also credited fact-based public commentary and observations as showing potentially significant traffic impacts, and observed that the Initial Study itself confirmed a Project-caused change in traffic LOS from E to F, which adverse impact was not rendered insignificant under CEQA or “trumped” by City’s adopted threshold of significance to that effect. [read post]
1 Aug 2018, 3:39 pm
In an opinion filed June 28, and later ordered modified and published on July 27, 2018, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 6) affirmed the trial court’s $21,160.46 cost award in favor of a prevailing party public agency for costs associated with preparing the administrative record in a CEQA case, despite petitioner’s election to prepare the record, where the petitioner had unreasonably delayed and the agency acted reasonably. [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 10:24 am
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 1:52 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 2:40 pm
The Court noted it “has no obligation to perfect an inadequate record” and that “the general rule is that “[f]ailure to provide an adequate record concerning an issue challenged on appeal requires that the issue be resolved against the appellant. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 2:29 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
8 Jun 2018, 11:34 am
Please contact Arthur F. [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 May 2018, 12:24 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 6:04 pm
In an opinion filed March 20, and later certified for publication on April 12, 2018, the First District Court of Appeal (Division 3) affirmed a limited peremptory writ of mandate issued by the Contra Costa County Superior Court requiring the County to set aside an EIR and land use permit for Phillips 66 Company’s “Propane Recovery Project” at its oil refinery in the City of Rodeo, pending County’s correction of specified inadequacies in the EIR’s air quality analysis. [read post]
