We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Articles

Results 1 to 4 of 4
Most popular |Most recent


CEQA requires separate evaluation of mitigation measures and alternatives even where mitigation measures are incorporated into project design

USA - March 26 2014 In Trisha Lee Lotus et al. V Department of Transportation et al. (1st Dist., Div. 4, 13014 A137315) ___ Cal.App.___ ____, 2014, the court of appeal...

Checklist approval of design plan conforming to guidelines established under specific plan constitutes a ministerial act under CEQA

USA - July 8 2009 The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District determined that the act of reviewing and approving a design permit application for a warehouse facility by the March Joint Powers Authority (the "Authority") in accordance with the Specific Plan for the March Business Center constituted a ministerial act and thus did not require further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")....

EPA's new source performance standard does not apply to discharges of mining slurry regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

USA - July 8 2009 On June 22, 2009, the United States Supreme Court held that the new source pollution standards in Section 306(b) of the Clean Water Act (the “CWA”) did not apply to discharges of slurry from a rehabilitated “froth-flotation” gold mine into a nearby navigable lake....

Robert J. Uram.

County outside counsel work product not part of CEQA record even if disclosed to real party in interest

USA - June 19 2009 Four letters sent to the County of Tehama and the Tehama County Board of Supervisors (collectively “Tehama”) and disclosed to real parties in interest by a law firm retained as outside counsel for the purpose of providing advice on compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) maintained their privileged status under the attorney-client and work product privileges despite the disclosure and thus did not need to be included in the administrative record....