Search for: "So. Cal. Gas v. South Coast Air Quality" Results 1 - 20 of 27
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Jul 2017, 12:02 pm by Jeffrey Forrest
San Diego Association of Governments (2017) __ Cal. 5th __, Supreme Court Case No., S223603 Judicial deference to a lead agency’s determination regarding the proper greenhouse gas (“GHG”) threshold for a project California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) remains a swinging pendulum. [read post]
21 Jul 2017, 12:02 pm by Jeffrey Forrest
San Diego Association of Governments (2017) __ Cal. 5th __, Supreme Court Case No., S223603 Judicial deference to a lead agency’s determination regarding the proper greenhouse gas (“GHG”) threshold for a project California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) remains a swinging pendulum. [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 10:19 am by Abbott & Kindermann
See Bay Area Air Quality Management District Defers Adoption of Greenhouse Gas Threshold. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 10:43 am by Abbott & Kindermann
South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310: The Supreme Court found that CEQA air quality impacts are to be measured against existing physical conditions not existing permitted levels of operations for emitter. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 8:56 am by Abbott & Kindermann
S-3-05, so as to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 10:03 am by Abbott & Kindermann
Superior Court (Environmental Law Foundation), ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 2013 Cal. [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 9:04 am by Abbott & Kindermann
South Coast Air Quality Management District (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 406: Applying the substantial evidence standard, the court upheld a challenge to the use of an environmental assessment (as a de facto negative declaration) for the adoption of new air district rules regulating manufacturer use of ozone forming volatile organic compounds. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 11:21 am by Abbott & Kindermann
South Coast Air Quality Management District (June 28, 2012, B233892) ___Cal.App.4th ___: Applying the substantial evidence standard, the court upheld a challenge to the use of an environmental assessment (as a de facto negative declaration) for the adoption of new air district rules regulating manufacturer use of ozone forming volatile organic compounds. [read post]
The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the Project, pursuant to SB 35 was eligible for ministerial review and approval, and to do so does not violate the City’s charter authority. [read post]