Search for: "THE WELLNESS PLAN V CITY OF OAK PARK"
Results 1 - 20
of 38
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jan 2013, 9:04 am
EIRs: LAND USE AND PLANNING ***Banning Ranch Conservancy v. [read post]
16 Jul 2013, 8:55 am
Pursuant to this direction, the Park District proceeded to plan the Bay Trail (a 400-mile recreational corridor along the east shore of the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays) as well as the Eastshore Park. [read post]
23 Aug 2021, 8:52 am
’ The Court cited San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 10:52 pm
PI Telecom Infrastructure v City of Jacksonville, 2015 WL 2169962 (MD FL 5/8/2015)Filed under: Current Caselaw, Wireless Communications [read post]
4 Sep 2023, 8:00 am
Rossignol v. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:34 am
City of San Diego v. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 8:53 am
In Great Oaks Water Co. v. [read post]
6 Jul 2022, 7:02 am
§§ 2000bb to 2000bb-4)(“the RFRA”).[6] (Even though the RFRA was held unconstitutional as applied to state and local governments, City of Boerne v. [read post]
Appellate Court Shuts Out Trial Court in CEQA/ESA Double Header under Deferential Standard of Review
3 Apr 2014, 11:08 am
Newhall Ranch Specific Plan (the specific plan) On May 27, 2003, the County of Los Angeles approved the Newhall Ranch “specific plan” that includes a broad range of residential, mixed-use and non-residential land uses within five villages, allowing for up to 21,308 dwelling units (including 423 second units), 629 acres of mixed-use development, 67 acres of commercial uses, 249 acres of business park land uses, 37 acres of visitor-serving uses, 1,014… [read post]
7 Jul 2022, 11:22 am
The Revised Project’s approval was upheld on Petitioners’ two subsequent administrative appeals to the Planning Commission and City Council. [read post]
5 Apr 2019, 11:58 am
” Citing to and quoting from its decision in California Oak Foundation v. [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 3:00 am
Oaks. [read post]
18 Jan 2021, 7:58 pm
The case is Coalition for an Equitable Westlake/MacArthur Park v. [read post]
13 Jan 2021, 3:00 am
The trial court ruled against the lead agency and developer (Gelfand) based upon CEQA claims and violation of the City’s oak tree ordinance. [read post]
13 Jan 2021, 3:00 am
The trial court ruled against the lead agency and developer (Gelfand) based upon CEQA claims and violation of the City’s oak tree ordinance. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 3:00 am
The trial court ruled against the lead agency and developer (Gelfand) based upon CEQA claims and violation of the City’s oak tree ordinance. [read post]
23 Jan 2008, 4:19 pm
For publication opinions 1/22/08 (6): In City of Charlestown Advisory Planning Commission v. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 10:56 am
(Citing, e.g., Rich v. [read post]
18 Feb 2022, 6:02 am
The Vickerys' builder emailed the City of Pensacola (the City) to inform it that the Vickerys planned to remove the tree. [read post]
9 Mar 2023, 3:00 am
County of Mono v. [read post]
