Search for: "Arthur F. Coon"
Results 381 - 400
of 456
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Oct 2013, 11:59 am
The important legislative policy of expediting CEQA litigation sometimes inevitably conflicts with the policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits. [read post]
12 Aug 2024, 10:42 am
The Sixth District Court of Appeal filed on July 24, and later certified for publication on August 6, 2024, its opinion in Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. [read post]
9 Sep 2024, 9:57 am
In a published decision filed September 6, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 5) reversed the trial court’s judgment granting a writ of mandate and upheld the use of CEQA’s Class 1 categorical exemption (CEQA Guidelines, § 15301) by the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Geologic Energy Management (“CalGEM”) in approving a project to convert an oil well that previously pumped oil and water from a deep aquifer into an injection well that… [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]
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]
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]
28 Oct 2019, 1:12 pm
However, “[i]f the project may have significant effects, but mitigation measures will make the effects insignificant, the agency may adopt a mitigated negative declaration. [read post]
22 Sep 2016, 4:55 pm
“… like all things in life, project plans are subject to change. [read post]
11 May 2021, 11:48 am
In a lengthy opinion filed April 8, and ordered published on May 7, 2021, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment rejecting a number of CEQA challenges to the California State Land Commission’s (Lands Commission) supplemental EIR for and related approval of a lease modification to facilitate a desalination plant in Huntington Beach. [read post]
23 Aug 2021, 8:52 am
In a published opinion filed August 19, 2021, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed a judgment of the Los Angeles County Superior Court that found fault with the EIR for an improvement project within the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument portion of the Angeles National Forest. [read post]
31 Oct 2022, 12:32 pm
In a published opinion filed October 26, 2022, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 6) appears to have significantly expanded the reach of both the Brown Act and the procedural requirements of CEQA in holding, on an issue of first impression, that a public agency must list its staff’s determination that a project is exempt from CEQA as an item of business on the agenda for the meeting at which it considers the project approval. [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 10:09 am
” Significantly, the Court pointedly rejected plaintiffs’ attempted reliance on an earlier court of appeal precedent for the asserted principle that “[f]ailure to comply with the CEQA procedures is necessarily prejudicial[,]” noting that statement “does not comport with either CEQA section 21005 or with the Supreme Court’s decision in Neighbors for Smart Rail [v. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 11:19 am
Tracing the early legislative and judicial history of CEQA, the Court observed that its landmark Friends of Mammoth decision construing CEQA to apply to approvals of private projects noted that CEQA “deals…with questions of degree” and that “[f]urther legislative or administra [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 3:37 pm
In a unanimous 29-page opinion authored by Associate Justice Carol Corrigan, and filed on March 30, 2017, the California Supreme Court held the City of Newport Beach’s EIR for a large mixed-use development project proposed on a 400-acre coastal zone site failed to comply with CEQA. [read post]
1 Apr 2020, 4:33 pm
In April 2012, Caltrans circulated the DEIR for the Project, which stated that “[f]ollowing circulation of the [FEIR], if the decision is made to approve the [P]roject, a Notice of Determination [NOD] will be published for compliance with CEQA. . . . [read post]
18 Sep 2015, 4:54 pm
., at 111, citing Maureen F. [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]
29 Aug 2019, 7:56 am
In an opinion originally filed on July 31, and belatedly ordered published on August 22, 2019, the Second District Court of Appeal (Division 3) affirmed a judgment granting a CEQA writ petition invalidating the final EIR and project entitlements for the Millennium Project, a controversial proposed mixed-use development on a 4.47-acre parcel straddling Vine Street and surrounding the historic Capital Records Building in Hollywood. [read post]
