Search for: "Arthur F. Coon"
Results 381 - 400
of 443
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Sep 2016, 4:55 pm
“… like all things in life, project plans are subject to change. [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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
18 Sep 2015, 4:54 pm
., at 111, citing Maureen F. [read post]
4 Apr 2022, 1:15 pm
In a published decision filed March 30, 2022, the First District Court of Appeal (Division 5) reversed a trial court judgment upholding the reissued final environmental impact report (“RFEIR”) for a 44-single family residence project on a unique, species- and habitat- rich 32-acre site in the City of Livermore’s Garaventa Hills area. [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]
19 Dec 2022, 11:07 am
In an opinion filed on November 14, and later certified for publication on December 13, 2022, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 3) affirmed a Sonoma County Superior Court judgment upholding the EIR for a 180-unit apartment complex proposed on a 15.45-acre parcel of vacant land along the Petaluma River. [read post]
28 Dec 2018, 4:14 pm
In a unanimous 33-page opinion authored by Justice Ming Chin and issued on December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court addressed the standard of review for claims challenging the legal sufficiency of an EIR’s discussion of environmental impacts, and also CEQA’s rules regarding deferral and adequacy of mitigation measures. [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]
3 Nov 2015, 5:04 pm
In a 65-page opinion certified for publication and filed October 22, 2015, the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal affirmed the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s judgment denying writ petitions by the City of Beverly Hills (“City”) and the Beverly Hills Unified School District (“District”). [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]
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]
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]
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]
