Search for: "Napa County Board of Supervisors"
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Apr 2012, 8:52 am
Napa County Board of Supervisors (April 20, 2012, A130980) ___Cal.App.4th ___. [read post]
3 May 2021, 9:58 am
County of Napa (1st Dist. 2021) ____ Cal.App.5th ____. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 4:10 pm
Napa County Board of Supervisors, et al. (4/12/12) ___ Cal.App.4th _____, Case No. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 9:20 am
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32 stood for the proposition that the 30-day statute is triggered when the NOD is filed, not when it is posted. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 10:25 am
Napa Valley County Board of Supervisors Chairman Keith Caldwell says one possibility is housing county jail inmates at fire camps with counties paying $46.19 per day per inmate, although it would cost counties less ($8 - $10 per day) for electronic monitoring or home detention.CA Death Sentence Reversed, Conviction Upheld: Howard Mintz of Mercury News reports the CA Supreme Court unanimously reversed the death sentence in the 1987 case… [read post]
27 Nov 2018, 12:27 pm
Code, § 51119) “expressly exempts from CEQA review any decision of a County board of supervisors to place parcels into timberland production zones” and that because such a decision “necessarily involves the State law’s authorization of residences and structures necessary for the management of these parcels, the findings of compatibility are governed solely by the Timberland Act. [read post]
24 Apr 2017, 2:32 pm
Napa County board of Supervisors (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 162, 178), the Court stated it would review an agency’s related factual determinations for substantial evidence and pure questions of law de novo. [read post]
6 Sep 2016, 11:23 am
(Citing Latinos Unidos de Napa v. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 9:57 pm
Napa County Board of Supervisors (2012) 205 CA 4th 162; Sierra Club v. [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 9:04 am
Napa County Board of Supervisors (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 162: The processing of sequential boundary line adjustments is categorically exempt from CEQA, as long as a discretionary permit is not concurrently processed. [read post]
16 Sep 2020, 3:00 am
Abbott & Kindermann, Inc. actively represents private and public clients throughout California, with a particular emphasis over the last 12 months in Alameda, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Lake, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Siskiyou, Sutter, Mariposa, and Yolo counties and cities. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 10:22 am
Napa County Board of Supervisors (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 162 (holding Napa County’s revised lot line adjustment ordinance properly classified lot line adjustment decisions consistent with the Map Act’s exemption as ministerial in nature and exempt from CEQA); Friends of Juana Briones House v. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 6:45 am
According to the Association’s evidence, more than 98% of all redevelopment agencies are governed by a board consisting of the county board of supervisors or city council that created the agency. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 11:21 am
Napa County Board of Supervisors (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 162: The processing of sequential boundary line adjustments is categorically exempt from CEQA, as long as a discretionary permit is not concurrently processed. [read post]
31 Dec 2018, 7:00 am
The group is currently representing Marin County, Santa Cruz County, Sonoma County, Napa County and Tulare County in bringing affirmative claims against drug manufacturers and distributors to hold them accountable for their unlawful conduct. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 10:22 am
Napa County Board of Supervisors (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 162 (holding Napa County’s revised lot line adjustment ordinance properly classified lot line adjustment decisions consistent with the Map Act’s exemption as ministerial in nature and exempt from CEQA); Friends of Juana Briones House v. [read post]
13 Oct 2021, 5:44 am
In its decision certified for partial publication, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court decision that: (1) no exhaustion was required because the County failed to give adequate notice that CEQA exemptions would be considered at the public hearing by the board of supervisors; and (2) that “facilities” in Section 15301 does not include the operation of unlined landfills. [read post]
13 Oct 2021, 5:44 am
In its decision certified for partial publication, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court decision that: (1) no exhaustion was required because the County failed to give adequate notice that CEQA exemptions would be considered at the public hearing by the board of supervisors; and (2) that “facilities” in Section 15301 does not include the operation of unlined landfills. [read post]
7 Jul 2021, 12:51 am
County of Napa (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 444. [read post]
7 Jul 2021, 12:51 am
County of Napa (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 444. [read post]
