Posts Tagged ‘Andrea Matarazzo’

12
Sep

Water District Failed to Show that Rate Structure Complied with Proposition 218 Requirements for Property-Related Fees


Warning: Illegal string offset 'thumb_image' in /home/customer/www/pioneerlawgroup.net/public_html/wp-content/themes/vulcan/archive.php on line 54

Water District Failed to Show that Rate Structure Complied with Proposition 218 Requirements for Property-Related Fees City of Palmdale v. Palmdale Water District [No. B224869; filed 8/9/11, pub. order & mod. 8/25/11] By Andrea A. Matarazzo The City of Palmdale sought to invalidate water rate increases by the Palmdale Water District (“PWD”), arguing that PWD’s new rate structure violated the constitutional requirements of Proposition 218.  Under Proposition 218, fees imposed as ...

12
Sep

Court of Appeal Overturns Use Permit and Variance for Synagogue Expansion Due to City’s Failure to Comply with City Charter and Topanga Findings Requirements


Warning: Illegal string offset 'thumb_image' in /home/customer/www/pioneerlawgroup.net/public_html/wp-content/themes/vulcan/archive.php on line 54

Court of Appeal Overturns Use Permit and Variance for Synagogue Expansion Due to City’s Failure to Comply with City Charter and Topanga Findings Requirements West Chandler Boulevard Neighborhood Association v. City of Los Angeles [Nos. B226663, B229418; filed 8/16/11, ordered published 9/6/11] By Andrea A. Matarazzo The Second District Court of Appeal overturned a decision by the City of Los Angeles granting a conditional use permit and parking variance for a synagogue in ...

09
Sep

Ninth Circuit Upholds Bureau of Reclamation’s NEPA Review of Proposed Lake Roosevelt Drawdown Project


Warning: Illegal string offset 'thumb_image' in /home/customer/www/pioneerlawgroup.net/public_html/wp-content/themes/vulcan/archive.php on line 54

Center for Environmental Law and Policy v. United States Bureau of Reclamation [No. 10-35646, filed August 19, 2011] By Andrea A. Matarazzo The Center for Environmental Law and Policy (“CELP”) challenged the Bureau of Reclamation’s NEPA review of a water diversion project, arguing that the agency’s Environmental Assessment (“EA”) was a post hoc rationale for a decision already made.  CELP claimed that the EA also ...

08
Aug

City’s Density Restriction Limiting Residential Development of 69-Acre Property Was Not an Illegal Spot Zone


Warning: Illegal string offset 'thumb_image' in /home/customer/www/pioneerlawgroup.net/public_html/wp-content/themes/vulcan/archive.php on line 54

Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill (6th District, No. H035519, Filed 8/5/11) By Andrea A. Matarazzo   Arcadia Development Company, the owner of an undeveloped 69-acre parcel in the City of Morgan Hill, challenged that City’s ordinance ...

08
Aug

California Supreme Court Affirms That Common Sense “Is an Important Consideration at All Levels of CEQA Review.”


Warning: Illegal string offset 'thumb_image' in /home/customer/www/pioneerlawgroup.net/public_html/wp-content/themes/vulcan/archive.php on line 54

California Supreme Court Affirms That Common Sense "Is an Important Consideration at All Levels of CEQA Review."   By Andrea A. Matarazzo The City of Manhattan Beach (“City”) adopted an ordinance prohibiting the use of ...

05
Aug

Court of Appeal Allows CEQA Petitioner to Recover Attorney’s Fees Incurred to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Prior to Litigation.


Warning: Illegal string offset 'thumb_image' in /home/customer/www/pioneerlawgroup.net/public_html/wp-content/themes/vulcan/archive.php on line 54

Court of Appeal Allows CEQA Petitioner to Recover Attorney’s Fees Incurred to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Prior to Litigation. Edna Valley Watch v. County of San Luis Obispo (2nd District, No. B223653, Filed 8/2/11)   By Andrea A. Matarazzo Under the “American Rule” of attorney’s fees, each party in a lawsuit is ...

29
Jul

City’s Approval of a Hospital Expansion Project Did Not Violate CEQA or Local Ordinances.


Warning: Illegal string offset 'thumb_image' in /home/customer/www/pioneerlawgroup.net/public_html/wp-content/themes/vulcan/archive.php on line 54

City’s Approval of a Hospital Expansion Project Did Not Violate CEQA or Local Ordinances. Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. City of Santa Clarita (2nd District, No. B224242, Filed 6/30/11; Certified for Publication 7/26/11)   By Andrea A. Matarazzo The Second District Court of Appeal recently upheld approval ...

© 2012- Pioneer Law Group, LLP. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer