Search for: "Arthur F. Coon"
Results 241 - 260
of 456
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Mar 2017, 12:21 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 3:09 pm
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]
4 Aug 2015, 10:56 am
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
16 Jan 2020, 1:39 pm
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]
8 Jul 2015, 2:06 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 3:09 pm
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]
27 Jul 2016, 11:55 am
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
2 Nov 2012, 2:17 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
17 Nov 2017, 2:26 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
8 Feb 2016, 12:40 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
6 Jun 2019, 1:44 pm
The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an important case we’ve been following involving CEQA’s definition of a “project” on the afternoon of June 4, 2019, and took the matter under submission. [read post]
12 Sep 2023, 3:10 pm
On August 10, 2023 the Sixth District Court of Appeal filed its published opinion in Santa Rita Union School District v. [read post]
15 Mar 2018, 4:26 pm
In a published opinion filed January 31, 2018, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial Court’s judgment issuing a writ of mandate voiding the California State Air Resources Board’s (“CARB”) 2014 amendments to its 2008 Truck and Bus Regulation and its related environmental review documents, which were the functional equivalent of a negative declaration under CARB’s certified regulatory program. [read post]
5 Jan 2016, 3:53 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 10:22 am
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
25 Nov 2014, 2:36 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
30 May 2023, 5:02 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 1:33 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
18 Oct 2012, 11:49 am
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
9 Aug 2013, 3:24 pm
In a much-anticipated decision filed August 5, 2013, the California Supreme Court held that CEQA requires a lead agency to assess a project’s environmental impacts against an “existing conditions” baseline – and consequently disallows sole reliance on a “future conditions” baseline – unless the agency shows “by substantial evidence that an analysis based on existing conditions would tend to be misleading or without informational value to… [read post]
