Search for: "Arthur F. Coon"
Results 361 - 380
of 443
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jan 2018, 4:31 pm
As we move into a brand new year of tracking CEQA developments, it seems like an appropriate time to survey and briefly recap some of the many significant published case law developments that occurred over the past year. [read post]
23 Nov 2022, 3:34 pm
“We didn’t start the fire…. [read post]
25 Sep 2017, 4:09 pm
In a published opinion filed September 19, 2017, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of a writ petition challenging defendant California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s (“Department”) approval of label amendments for two pesticides containing an active ingredient toxic to honeybees. [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 12:15 pm
In a published opinion filed June 23, 2023, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. 1) affirmed a judgment granting a writ of mandate directing the City of San Diego (City) to set aside its approvals of an ordinance submitting to the voters a ballot measure that would exclude the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Plan Area from the City’s 30-foot height limit on construction of buildings in the Coastal Zone. [read post]
15 Jun 2023, 12:10 pm
In a published opinion filed June 7, 2023, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held the trial court erred in applying California’s interrelated factors test to deny a preliminary injunction in a CEQA case. [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 3:15 pm
In a published opinion filed June 13, 2023, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 8) affirmed the trial court’s judgment rejecting CEQA challenges to the City of Pomona’s (City) use of a statutory exemption – under Public Resources Code § 21083.3(a), (b) and CEQA Guidelines § 15183 – for its adoption of a zoning overlay district allowing commercial cannabis activities at specific locations within the City’s boundaries. [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 10:59 am
In a lengthy, mostly-unpublished opinion filed on August 14, 2014, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court’s judgment denying a writ petition challenging the Parkmerced Development Project. [read post]
4 Mar 2021, 5:22 pm
“The more I know, the less I understand/All the things I thought I’d figured out, I have to learn again” – Don Henley, “The Heart of the Matter” One of CEQA’s bedrock principles is that environmental review must precede project approval. [read post]
28 Sep 2021, 10:40 am
Against the backdrop of another severe drought, water supply and impact issues continue to be points of contention for water agencies, water users, conservation groups, and the state. [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 4:38 pm
Nothing says “battle royal” quite like pitting several of California’s heavyweight environmental laws against one another in a “winner-take-all” litigation brawl. [read post]
22 Nov 2017, 11:35 am
When it comes to CEQA cases, some courts don’t seem to know when to stop beating a dead horse. [read post]
3 Oct 2019, 3:51 pm
In a 68-page published opinion filed September 27, 2019, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. [read post]
3 Dec 2019, 4:56 pm
Despite well-reasoned requests for depublication made by the City of Los Angeles, the California Building Industry Association (CBIA), the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the League of California Cities (League), the Second District’s questionable and controversial decision in Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com, et al. v. [read post]
22 Sep 2023, 8:57 am
In a partially published opinion filed on September 7, 2023, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment denying a CEQA challenge to Sacramento County’s approval of a mixed-use development project known as the Mather South Community Master Plan (the “project“); if implemented, the project would result in, inter alia, up to 3,522 residential dwelling units; 225,000 square feet of retail space; 49 acres of environmental education campus and research and development park… [read post]
16 Nov 2023, 12:24 pm
In a published opinion filed November 13, 2023, disposing of consolidated appeals, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 6) affirmed judgments denying writ petitions that sought to invalidate a Ventura County ordinance. [read post]
18 Jul 2017, 9:24 am
“You may say I’m a dreamer. [read post]
12 May 2015, 12:51 pm
The Court of Appeal’s Application Of The “Fair Argument” Test The Court of Appeal observed that CEQA provides no “ironclad definition” of what constitutes a significant effect and that “[i]f there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts …. the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR” (citing 14 Cal. [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]
2 May 2023, 11:45 am
Dept. of Commerce (9th Cir. 2017) 878 F.3d 725, had been held too speculative to analyze. [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]
