Search for: "Los Angeles v. Los Angeles C. F. C. Dist." Results 41 - 60 of 79
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Oct 2015, 3:24 pm by Arthur F. Coon
San Diego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1013 [school district board resolution exempting projects from city’s zoning and land use laws was not project approval as it did not commit district to definite course of action regarding any project]; Chung v. [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 11:11 am by Arthur F. Coon
OPR proposes to add a new subdivision (f) to this section to codify the water supply analysis rules set forth in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 1:28 pm
City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter v. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:34 am by Abbott & Kindermann
City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385), or is the agency’s decision subject to a threshold determination whether the modification of the project constitutes a “new project altogether,” as a matter of law (Save Our Neighborhood v. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 12:30 pm by Abbott & Kindermann
City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385), or is the agency’s decision subject to a threshold determination whether the modification of the project constitutes a “new project altogether,” as a matter of law (Save Our Neighborhood v. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 11:08 am by Abbott & Kindermann
The EIR related to general planning and conservation steps resulting from Los Angeles County’s prior approval of a 12,000 acre specific plan and neighboring 1500 acre conservation area in Ventura County. [read post]
9 Jan 2013, 4:00 am by Steve McConnell
We were sad to learn of the passing of Los Angeles television personality Huell Howser. [read post]
8 Nov 2012, 9:51 am by Arthur F. Coon
City of Los Angeles (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259, 272 — for the first time at oral argument; the quoted language explained that requiring EIRs for ministerial actions would be a wasteful gesture where the agency did not possess enough discretion to deny or modify the project based on environmental concerns raised by the EIR.  [read post]
8 Nov 2012, 9:51 am by Arthur F. Coon
City of Los Angeles (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259, 272 — for the first time at oral argument; the quoted language explained that requiring EIRs for ministerial actions would be a wasteful gesture where the agency did not possess enough discretion to deny or modify the project based on environmental concerns raised by the EIR. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 7:30 am by W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), or (2)(c) 4., commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084 [read post]