text:
Justia › US Law › Case Law › California Case Law › Cal. App. 3d › Volume 77 › Mount Sutro Defense Committee v. Regents of University of California
Mount Sutro Defense Committee v. Regents of University of California
MOUNT SUTRO DEFENSE COMMITTEE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Appellants.
(Opinion by Racanelli, P. J., with Elkington, J., and Broussard, J., concurring.) [77 Cal. App. 3d 22]
Garry, Dreyfus, McTernan, Brotsky, Herndon & Pesonen, and David E. Pesonen for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Donald L. Reidhaar, David A. Dorinson, Gary Morrison, Howard, Prim, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady & Pollak, Stuart R. Pollak, Robert E. Gooding, Jr., Fred H. Altshuler and Steven L. Mayer for Defendants and Appellants.
Racanelli, P. J.
Defendants and appellants Regents of the University of California et al. (including certain named University officials individually and in their representative capacities)* appeal from the judgment below granting injunctive and declaratory relief in favor of plaintiffs and appellants Mount Sutro Defense Committee et al. (including certain named individuals and nonprofit associations and corporations).† Mount Sutro cross-appeals from a portion of the same judgment denying its application for attorney fees, and also appeals (denominated related appeal) from certain orders subsequently made vacating the injunction provisions of said judgment.
* The interests of these named parties are identical; for purposes of clarity and convenience they will be referred to throughout this opinion as either The University or University, except as contraindicated.
† For similar reasons, these parties will be referred to collectively as Mount Sutro. [77 Cal. App. 3d 25]
Mount Sutro brought the underlying action against The University under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq., and the state EIR Guidelines, 14 California Administrative Code section 15000 et seq., fn. 1 seeking injunctive and declaratory relief (and attorney fees fn. 2), alleging that University's approval and certification of the final environmental impact reports (EIR) concerning proposed capital improvement projects to expand the school of dentistry and modernize the existing Moffitt Hospital situated on its San Francisco campus constituted an abuse of discretion within the meaning of section 21168.5 fn. 3 in that the regents had not proceeded in the manner required by law in approving such projects and in determining their environmental impact.
During trial the court considered extensive testimony and voluminous documentary exhibits concerning the planning and review process and procedures employed by The University in developing and finalizing its capital improvement projects and requests for funding by the Legislature. The adequacy of the final EIRs prepared by The University in relation to each project was not challenged and is not an issue on appeal. The court rendered an intended decision in favor of Mount Sutro and thereafter made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, the relevant portions of which are referred to in our discussion. Based upon such findings, the court entered its written judgment on December 16, 1975, (a) declaring that the written determinations required under section 21108 fn. 4 as made by The University president and regents [77 Cal. App. 3d 26] concerning each project failed to comply with the applicable provisions of CEQA and constituted an abuse of discretion (1) in failing to include the final EIR as a part of the project planning guide (PPG) and as part of the existing review and budgetary process for each project, and (2) in the nonavailability of said EIRs to the Legislature at the time of its review of budget acts appropriating necessary funds for working drawings and construction; (b) enjoining The University from "taking any action in furtherance of the construction" of both projects. fn. 5 The injunctive provisions were to remain effective until The University satisfactorily complied with the provisions of CEQA by undertaking an extensive rereview process fn. 6 and, upon reconsideration and reapproval by the regents, transmittal of both PPGs and EIRs "to the Speaker of the Assembly and the President Pro Tem of the Senate of the California Legislature for whatever action the Legislature deems appropriate." The judgment further ordered that the certifications by the regents be set aside and the notices of determination filed pursuant to section 21108 be withdrawn; Mount Sutro's request for attorney fees was denied. The University appealed this judgment and Mount Sutro cross-appealed from the portion thereof denying attorney fees.
Upon completion of the rereview process and reapproval by the regents of the hospital project (Jan. 23, 1976) and dentistry project (Mar. 19, 1976), University moved to vacate the injunctive provisions of the judgment. Based upon uncontradicted and substantial evidence submitted by The University, the court determined that it had satisfactorily performed the mandated rereview process and rendered its order vacating the injunction as to the hospital project (Mar. 16, 1976) and subsequently the dentistry project (Apr. 9, 1976). [77 Cal. App. 3d 27]
Findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of said order were made and filed (Apr. 28, 1976) and a decree vacating said injunction entered on the same day. Mount Sutro has appealed from the orders fn. 7 of March 16, 1976, and April 9, 1976, vacating the injunctions. fn. 8
Mootness
Preliminarily, we address the question of mootness of the appeal by The University in light of the decree vacating the injunctions. fn. 9 Both sides agree that the issues presented should be decided on the merits in view of the broad public interest to be served by resolution of such issues. We are similarly persuaded. [1] "It is now established law that where, as in the cases at bench, issues on appeal affect the general public interest and the future rights of the parties, and there is reasonable probability that the same questions will again be litigated and appealed, an appellate court may, although the appeal be subject to dismissal, nevertheless adjudicate the issues involved. [Citations.]" (People v. West Coast Shows, Inc. (1970) 10 Cal. App. 3d 462, 468 [89 Cal. Rptr. 290]; see also Johnson v. Hamilton (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 461, 465 [125 Cal. Rptr. 129, 541 P.2d 881]; 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Appeal, § 470, pp. 4426-4427.)
The novel questions of statutory interpretation presented on appeal fall within the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine and are ripe for adjudication. Moreover, Mount Sutro's cross-appeal on its face [77 Cal. App. 3d 28] presents a viable issue for determination. Thus, we conclude it is entirely appropriate to adjudicate such issues.
Statement of Facts
In order to fully understand the factual background against which the questions on appeal are presented, it is necessary to explain in some detail the various processes involved in the planning and funding of The University's capital improvement projects as interfaced with environmental requirements and considerations. In view of Mount Sutro's adoption of the statement of facts as set forth in The University's opening brief, we substantially adopt such statement of facts herein.
I. The Planning and Budgetary Process
To secure necessary funding for capital improvement projects, The University as a state agency undertakes a complex and time-consuming process of planning and review directed towards eventual approval (or disapproval) by the regents for authority to request legislative appropriations.
Long-range physical planning for each University campus is conceptualized through the preparation of a long range development plan (LRDP). The San Francisco campus LRDP in effect at all relevant times herein was originally adopted by the regents in 1964 and amended periodically thereafter. In 1969, a multi-phase planning process to revise the LRDP was begun. In accordance with University policy, an EIR was prepared in conjunction with the proposed revision (the first such revision since the enactment of CEQA). Revision of the LRDP was still in the preparation stage as of September 1974.
The LRDP, used for planning purposes only, is intended to ensure that consideration is given to long-term trends and the relation of particular projects to the campus as a whole; inclusion of a particular proposed structure in the LRDP does not constitute a commitment by The University to proceed with that project. Physical planning for particular structures is preceded by programmatic planning--i.e., study and determination of academic needs and goals. Programmatic objectives are translated to specific proposed projects in a document entitled Project Planning Guide (PPG). The PPG is a document utilized at the staff level only to assess programmatic and financial feasibility of a [77 Cal. App. 3d 29] proposed major capital improvement project. It establishes the scope and purpose of the project and is intended to provide a foundation for subsequent planning. The PPG is often revised to reflect planning changes in the scope of the proposed project. It must be included in budget requests to the State Department of Finance but is not submitted to the regents and its approval by the campus chancellor does not constitute approval of the project or authorization to proceed beyond preliminary planning of the project.
The next stage of planning (following appointment of an architect) involves the preparation of preliminary plans and schematic drawings. The partial schematics prepared at the end of the preliminary design development stage must be presented for approval by the regents before the preparation of the more costly working drawings can begin. Following such approval by the regents and their concurrent review of the EIR (discussed infra), preparation of working drawings commences. This phase of planning extends over many months (as in the case of the Moffitt Hospital modernization, more than a year). Thereafter, the construction documents are prepared and made available to contractors, bids are received and reviewed, and construction contracts awarded.
Necessary funding is usually obtained in stages corresponding to the stages of planning and construction. In the case of a new capital project, the basic funding stages and time sequences are generally as follows:
First year--General program design
Second year--Preparation of preliminary plans and schematic design
Third year--Preparation of working drawings
Fourth year--Construction of improvements
The University president (with staff assistance) is responsible for the preparation, and submission to the regents, of an annual budget and capital improvement program. This function is initiated in March of each year for the budget to be enacted by the Legislature in June of the following year effective for that fiscal year. Briefly, this function entails the following steps: (1) in conformance with general guidelines outlined by the president, the chancellor of each campus submits a budget request for a proposed one-year operating budget and five-year capital outlay program; (2) the budget request is then reviewed by an academic planning and program review board, the office of budgetary planning and certain members of the president's staff (now termed systemwide [77 Cal. App. 3d 30] administration); (3) thereafter the president's proposed budget and improvement program is submitted to the regents in September; (4) following review and consideration by designated committees of the regents, the final proposed budget is submitted for approval by the regents during October; (5) upon approval by the regents, the adopted budget is forwarded to the State Department of Finance for inclusion in the Governor's proposed budget submitted to the Legislature for consideration and adoption during the next year's regular session.
Thus, it is apparent, the funding process involved in the design and construction of a major capital improvement program covers a period of years necessitating budget requests well in advance of actual appropriations and before the completion of earlier phases of work for which funds have been appropriated in prior years. The funding cycle is completed as requested funds are released for expenditure by the State Public Works Board upon its acceptance of project justification in accordance with the provisions of Government Code sections 15790 and 15792. fn. 10 Requests for the release of funds to prepare working drawings must be supported by adequate preliminary drawings; requests for release of construction funds must in turn be supported by adequate working drawings. The University has no authority to undertake either preparation of the working drawings or any construction until after the board releases the requested funds; authority so obtained is limited to the particular phase of work for which funds have been released.
II. The EIR Procedures
In accordance with section 21082 fn. 11 and the implementing state Guidelines adopted in early 1973, The University promptly developed its own procedures (set forth in relevant part in the margin) fn. 12 designed to [77 Cal. App. 3d 31] ensure environmental considerations by the regents during its review of proposed projects and prior to their approval.
A review of The University's environmental procedures reveals a practice of beginning the environmental review process at the same time the PPG is prepared (see Guidelines, § 15086). The "initial study" recommended under then section 15080 fn. 13 of the Guidelines was initiated by completion of an environmental impact classification form requiring a determination whether the proposed project is subject (1) to an EIR requirement; (2) a negative declaration of significant environmental effect, or (3) categorical exemption. Upon completion of the PPG, preliminary planning is conducted in tandem with preparation of an EIR if (and as was) required by the classification form. While the amended [77 Cal. App. 3d 32] procedures (§ III(E)(12), fn. 12 ante) did not specify the point beyond which the project could not proceed pending final EIR regents' certification, the record reflects a policy formulated by The University that the preparation of working drawings phase was not to be undertaken until its EIR procedures were fully performed (that policy was clarified by revision of its procedures in early 1975).
III. Chronological Sequence of Events
In 1964 the LRPD contemplated both the Moffitt Hospital and school of dentistry projects (the plan was amended in 1966 and 1969 to provide for construction of a separate school and its resiting). In October of 1963, 1964 and 1965 the regents requested and obtained funds for preliminary planning for the Moffitt Hospital project (appropriated in Budget Acts of 1964, 1965 and 1966, respectively). Similar funding requests were made for the school project in October of 1968 and 1969 (Budget Acts of 1969 and 1970, respectively). Working drawings funds were requested for the school project and appropriated in the 1970 and 1971 Budget Acts; partial construction funds were appropriated by the 1972 act. Working drawings funds for Moffitt Hospital were requested in October 1971 and appropriated by the 1972 act; construction funds were requested in October 1972 and appropriated by the 1973 act.
During 1972 and 1973 considerable community discussions took place concerning both projects as well as the LRDP process. Those public discussions figured prominently in the ultimate planning decisions to reduce the scope and modify the design of both projects. Additional working drawings funds for the reduced school project were included in the 1973 act. In January 1973, the current PPG for Moffitt Hospital was issued; the school's current PPG was issued in October 1973. Both included environmental classification forms indicating full EIRs would be necessary. Preliminary working plans and schematic drawings for both projects began in 1973. Work began on the draft EIRs in late 1973. Several public meetings (see Guidelines, § 15165) regarding the projects were held during the preparation of the EIR drafts and additional community views solicited informally. The regents' October 1973 budget request included working drawings funds and first phase construction funds for Moffitt Hospital; construction funds were also included for the school (1974 Budget Act). [77 Cal. App. 3d 33]
The draft EIRs were completed in May 1974, and widely distributed. Formal hearings fn. 14 to review the draft EIRs were thereafter held and full responses prepared to public comments received. Slides of the recently completed schematic drawings for the school were shown during the June hearing. The final EIRs were completed in September 1974 at a cost of approximately $150,000; following a review process by the regents' committee on grounds and buildings, the committee approved the president's recommendations to certify the reports and to authorize proceeding with the projects and voted to present these recommendations to the full board. At the meeting fn. 15 of the regents on September 20, 1974, both EIRs were certified, and the respective projects authorized. On September 23, 1974, The University filed with the Secretary of Resources notices certifying that the final EIRs complied with CEQA and the Guidelines. No funds for the working drawings were released and no working drawings were begun for either project until after September 20, 1974, when the regents certified the EIRs and authorized the projects to proceed. As of that point, The University had expended on planning only 1.7 percent of the total funds budgeted for each of the two projects.
Interpretation of Section 21105
The central question presented herein revolves about considerations of timing under the requirements of section 21105. fn. 16 The specific question raised is at what point in time must an EIR for a state-funded construction project be proposed? The University argues that no precise point in time is mandated under either the provisions of CEQA or its implementing Guidelines; rather, it is urged, the timing involved in the preparation of the required EIR is fundamentally a question of judgment reposed in the public agency to be determined in a manner consistent with the overall purpose and objectives of CEQA. The trial court, in [77 Cal. App. 3d 34] rejecting that argument, construed the section as mandating a precise time for preparation of the EIR, namely: in conjunction with preparation of the PPGs and before a request is submitted to the Legislature for Budget Act appropriations for working drawings or construction. None of the parties has cited, nor does our research disclose, an authoritative interpretation of this provision of CEQA which thus appears to be a matter of first impression.
In announcing its intended decision, the trial court properly emphasized the underlying purpose of CEQA to "attempt to influence the decision-making process of state agencies at a point where genuine flexibility remains before bureaucratic momentum strips the EIR of any real influence on decision-making ..." In accordance with the trial court's determination that the applicable standard of review was one of "strict compliance" with the statute, findings were made which in substance provided that the planning and budgetary process (described supra), including the preparation of PPGs therein, constituted "the existing review and budgetary process" within the meaning of the statute; and further, that the PPGs constituted the "regular project reports" used in such process. It thus reasoned that when the regents approved the funding requests submitted to the Legislature for working drawings and construction funds for the school and for Moffitt Hospital Phase I resulting in the appropriation of such funds in the Budget Acts of 1973 and 1974, the environmental impact report on each project had not been prepared and was not available to the Legislature during its consideration of such requests as required by section 21105, constituting a failure to comply with the procedural provisions of CEQA "within the meaning of section 21167, subdivision (c)."
We begin our analysis by reviewing familiar principles of statutory construction. [2] As summarized in Alford v. Pierno (1972) 27 Cal. App. 3d 682, 688 [104 Cal.Rptr. 110]: "One of the cardinal rules of construction requires that words be given such interpretation as will promote rather than defeat the general purpose and policy of the law. [Citation.] A statute should be interpreted so as to produce a result that is reasonable. [Citation.] [See also County of Nevada v. MacMillen (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 662, 673 (114 Cal. Rptr. 345, 522 P.2d 1345).] If two constructions are possible that which leads to the more reasonable result should be adopted. [Citation.] [See also Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Adams (1948) 32 Cal. 2d 620, 630 (197 P.2d 543); Committee of the Rights [77 Cal. App. 3d 35] of the Disabled v. Swoap (1975) 48 Cal. App. 3d 505, 510 [122 Cal. Rptr. 52].] [¶] [3] In construing a statute, the court should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. [Citation.] The courts must look to the context of the law, and where uncertainty exists, consideration should be given to the consequences that will flow from a particular interpretation. [Citation.]"
[4] It is now well established that the provisions of CEQA are to be broadly interpreted in order to afford full protection of the environment. (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68, 83 [118 Cal. Rptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66]; Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal. 3d 247, 263 [104 Cal. Rptr. 761, 502 P.2d 1049]; San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco (1975) 48 Cal. App. 3d 584, 590 [122 Cal. Rptr. 100].) In interpreting its provisions we rely upon federal precedents as helpful authority in construing parallel provisions contained in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) upon which the California act was modeled. (Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 190, 201 [132 Cal. Rptr. 377, 553 P.2d 537]; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 13 Cal. 3d 68, 86, fn. 21; Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Coastside County Water Dist. (1972) 27 Cal. App. 3d 695, 701 [104 Cal. Rptr. 197].)
Nowhere in CEQA and its implementing Guidelines is a precise time specified at which an EIR must be prepared during the project planning process. Rather, sensible recognition is given to competing considerations in accomplishing CEQA's objectives by favoring preparation of an EIR "as early in the planning process as possible to enable environmental considerations to influence project program or design ... [and] before project plans are finalized" (Guidelines, § 15013) fn. 17 but late enough in the project development to provide "detailed information about the [likely environmental] effect [and] ways in which [such] adverse effects ... might be minimized; and to suggest alternatives ..." (Former § 21061; see also Guidelines, § 15012.) [77 Cal. App. 3d 36]
Recognizing a similar need to strike a balance between such competing concerns, the appeals court for the District of Columbia addressed the issue in the following manner: "In our view, the timing question can best be answered by reference to the underlying policies of NEPA in favor of meaningful, timely information on the effects of agency action. ... Thus we are pulled in two directions. Statements must be written late enough in the development process to contain meaningful information, but they must be written early enough so that whatever information is contained can practically serve as an input into the decision making process. [¶] Determining when to draft an impact statement for a ... program obviously requires a reconciliation of these competing concerns." fn. 18 (Scientists' Inst. for Pub. Info., Inc. v. Atomic Energy Com'n (D.C.Cir. 1973) 481 F.2d 1079, 1093-1094.) (S.I.P.I.) [5a] The intendment of the act and relevant Guidelines clearly contemplates the question of timing of the preparation of an EIR as basically an administrative decision to be made by a public agency consistent with the overall objectives of CEQA. (See Desert Environment Conservation Assn. v. Public Utilities Com. (1973) 8 Cal. 3d 739, 742 [106 Cal. Rptr. 31, 505 P.2d 223] [where the question of timing was initially presented although not reached in light of the enactment of § 21082].)
Given that a "major purpose of an EIR is to inform other government agencies, and the public generally, of the environmental impact of a [77 Cal. App. 3d 37] proposed project [citations] ..." (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 13 Cal. 3d 68, 86) and to inform the decision-making agency of the full range of adverse environmental effects and alternative measures prior to its decision to approve or disapprove such project (former § 21061; Guidelines, §§ 15012, 15150), the underlying policy of the act to "[e]nsure that the long-term protection of the environment shall be the guiding criterion in public decision" (§ 21001, subd. (d)), dictates that the "initial and primary responsibility for striking [the necessary] balance between competing concerns must rest with the [decision-making] agency itself, ..." (Scientists' Inst. for Pub. Info., Inc. v. Atomic Energy Com'n, supra, 481 F.2d 1079, 1094; see also Desert Environment Conservation Assn. v. Public Utilities Com., supra, 8 Cal. 3d 739, 742) and whose consideration cannot be merely a "post hoc rationalization" of a decision already made. (See Cady v. Morton (9th Cir. 1975) 527 F.2d 786, 794; cf. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 419 [28 L. Ed. 2d 136, 155, 91 S. Ct. 814]; Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Coastside County Water Dist., supra, 27 Cal. App. 3d 695, 706.) Such significant determination may not be judicially nullified in the absence of a prejudicial abuse of discretion manifested by the agency's failure to proceed in the manner required by law. (§ 21168.5; see No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 13 Cal. 3d 68, 88.) [6] In reviewing whether the agency procedures followed fully comply with CEQA, the test to be applied is not one demanding of absolute perfection but whether an objective, good faith effort to so comply is demonstrated. (See National Helium Corporation v. Morton (10th Cir. 1973) 486 F.2d 995, 1001-1003 [cert. den., 416 U.S. 993 (40 L. Ed. 2d 772, 94 S.Ct. 2405)]; Environmental Def. F., Inc. v. Corps of Eng. of U.S. Army (5th Cir. 1974) 492 F.2d 1123, 1131; Environmental Defense Fund v. Tennessee Valley Auth. (6th Cir. 1974) 492 F.2d 466, 468, fn. 1 [adopting the "rule of reason" test]; see also San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 48 Cal. App. 3d 584.)
That the timing of the EIR is in the first instance committed to the discretion and judgment of the agency finds further support in two recent holdings of our federal Supreme Court: In Kleppe v. Sierra Club, supra, 427 U.S. 390, the court likewise confronted the issue of timing (of the NEPA environmental statement) and the propriety of agency determination. In striking the S.I.P.I. formulated "balancing test" (see fn. 18 ante) [77 Cal. App. 3d 38] it was held (at p. 406 [49 L.Ed.2d at p. 588]): "A court has no authority to ... determine a point during the germination process of a potential proposal at which an impact statement should be prepared. Such an assertion of judicial authority would leave the agencies uncertain as to their procedural duties ... [and] would invite judicial involvement in the day-to-day decisionmaking process of the agencies, ..." Further, (at pp. 405-406 [49 L.Ed.2d at p. 588]): " ... under the first sentence of § 102(2)(C) the moment at which an agency must have a final statement ready 'is the time at which it makes a recommendation or report on a proposal for federal action.' (Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co. v. SCRAP, 422 U.S. 289, 320 (1975) (SCRAP II) (emphasis in original)."
In Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co. v. SCRAP (1975) 422 U.S. 289 [45 L. Ed. 2d 191, 95 S. Ct. 2336] (SCRAP II), the timing issue was considered in relation to what constituted a proposal within the agency's review process. In interpreting statutory language closely paralleling that contained in section 21105, the court reasoned as follows: "NEPA provides that 'such statement ... shall accompany the proposal through the existing agency review process' (emphasis added). This sentence does not, ... affect the time when the 'statement' must be prepared. It simply says what must be done with the 'statement' once it is prepared--it must accompany the 'proposal.' ... Under this sentence of the statute, the time at which the agency must prepare the final 'statement' is the time at which it makes a recommendation or report [italics added] on a proposal for federal action." (At p. 320 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 215].)
[7a] In this case there can be little doubt that the critical point in time is reached when final project recommendations and budgetary requests are submitted to the Regents as the ultimate decision-making body which alone is empowered to approve (or disapprove) capital improvement programs of that nature. (Cal. Const., art. IX, § 9.) The record establishes that at that juncture but before any final action was undertaken, the regents fully considered and evaluated the final EIRs prior to their certification and in accordance with the objectives and procedures set forth in its adopted Guidelines (fn. 12 ante); and in the absence of a contrary showing, the administrative procedures followed in evaluating the reflected environmental concerns are accorded a presumption of regularity. (Alford v. Pierno, supra, 27 Cal. App. 3d 682, 690-691; Campbell v. Board of Dental Examiners (1971) 17 Cal. App. 3d 872, 875-876 [95 Cal. Rptr. 351].) In performing those responsibilities, The University acted in faithful compliance with the intent and purpose [77 Cal. App. 3d 39] of CEQA. (See San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 48 Cal. App. 3d 584, 596.)
In examining the complex and extended planning and budgetary review process required of The University as a state agency seeking program approvals and legislative funding, it appears eminently reasonable that the environmental review process should be instituted and undertaken at the same time as the preliminary physical planning of the projects in order to ensure that environmental factors are considered early enough in the planning process to impact planning decisions yet late enough to provide meaningful information for environmental assessment (see generally Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 8 Cal.3d 247), an objective unlikely to be fulfilled by reading into the statute an absolute and inflexible time requirement. Here, admittedly adequate EIRs submitted for timely agency consideration were made possible as a result of the coordinated exchange and evaluation of information between project planners and environmental consultants. Moreover, public comments were actively solicited and considered during this formative stage of planning and review. Significant environmental factors were thus able to be identified and assessed early enough during the on-going planning process to meaningfully influence and effect changes in the proposed projects, e.g., reduction in projects' size, design changes, retention and sale of outdated building structures, a school "drop-off circle" to relieve traffic congestion et al. In such manner The University was able to gather and evaluate necessary environmental data to assure that a completed EIR would be available to the regents at the moment of final decision, while at the same time avoiding costly delay that would otherwise result by reason of the staged funding schedule. fn. 19 At the time the regents were required to consider certification of the EIRs and to determine whether to approve the projects (see University amended procedures III-E-13, fn. 12 ante), less than 2 percent of the estimated costs had been expended in the planning process; contrary to the trial court's determination, submission of the EIRs at such appropriate stage did not constitute "an idle act" without room for discretionary response by the decision-maker to environmental considerations. A fair appraisal of the record convincingly refutes such contention and clearly establishes a bona fide compliance with CEQA. [77 Cal. App. 3d 40]
[5b] We therefore hold that a proper construction of section 21105 does not fix a rigid time table for preparation of the required EIR but instead directs that such document be included "as a part of the regular project report" (in the existing review and budgetary process) ultimately submitted to the decision-maker for its consideration and action (see Kleppe v. Sierra Club, supra, 427 U.S. 390, and Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co. v. SCRAP (SCRAP II), supra, 422 U.S. 289). We further conclude that in order to achieve the salutary objectives of CEQA the determination of the earliest feasible time to introduce and coordinate environmental considerations into the planning process is to be made initially by the agency itself, which decision must be respected in the absence of manifest abuse. (§ 21168.5; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 13 Cal. 3d 68, 88.) Nor, as contended by Mount Sutro, does such interpretation of section 21105 conflict with the provisions of section 21102. fn. 20 Briefly, Mount Sutro contends that the latter section in harmony with the former must be read in such manner that any state agency request for funds must be accompanied by an EIR; that a close reading of the section reflects the Legislature's assumption that the agency seeking release of appropriated funds had already complied with CEQA by including the EIR in the regular project report used in the completed review process as specified by section 21105. The University, chorusing a similar need for harmony, argues that the language excepting "funds appropriated in the Budget Act" can only mean that funding requests for inclusion in Budget Act appropriations need not be accompanied by an EIR; that a reading of the two sections together evidences a legislative intent that section 21105 does not require preparation of an EIR before submitting such appropriation requests.
[8] It is an equally recognized canon of construction that "... the various parts of a statutory enactment must be harmonized by considering the particular clause or section in the context of the statutory framework as a whole." (Moyer v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal. 3d 222, 230 [110 Cal. Rptr. 144, 514 P.2d 1224]; see generally 45 Cal.Jur.2d pp. 625-626, and cases there collected.) Although awkward in [77 Cal. App. 3d 41] syntax, the substantive parts of section 21102 may be reasonably construed to require that an EIR accompany all funding requests or disbursements for agency projects involving environmental constraints with two exceptions: (1) funds appropriated in the Budget Act, and (2) previously unfunded projects involving feasibility or planning studies only. By expressly excluding funds appropriated in the Budget Act, no purpose is served by requiring an EIR to accompany funding requests for inclusion in the Budget Act; moreover, while requiring that an EIR be included in the regular project report, section 21105 mandates only that "[i]t shall be available to the Legislature." Certainly, had the Legislature intended to include funding requests for Budget Act appropriations as well, it could and would have employed suitable language in each section to clearly express that purpose. Moreover, had such meaning been intended, it is doubtful that the Legislature would have nevertheless authorized such requests through appropriations (as it did) without submission of the EIRs.
In reasoning that section 21102 does not require requests for funding in the Budget Act be accompanied by an EIR, we are aided by a consideration of other pertinent provisions of CEQA and the Guidelines. Section 21100 requires a state agency to prepare an EIR for each "project" proposed to be carried out as approved; section 21065 defines project to include "(a) Activities directly undertaken by any public agency." (See also Guidelines, § 15037, subd. (a)(1).) Unlike its federal counterpart (42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c)), section 21100 uses the narrower term "project" rather than the broader term "action" fn. 21 and omits any reference to "proposals for legislation" and "recommendations or reports relating to legislation and appropriations" (NEPA interim guidelines, 35 Fed.Reg. 7390) in defining "project" under section 21065 (supra), distinctions the Legislature was aware of when CEQA was adopted. (See Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 8 Cal. 3d 247, 261.) Further, Guidelines section 15037, subdivision (a)(1) as originally promulgated specifically excluded "proposals for legislation to be enacted ..." in defining "project," an exclusion further amplified by a subsequent amendment adding: "other than requests by state agencies for authorization or funding for projects independently from the Budget Act" (Guidelines, § 15037, subd. (b)(2); italics added); such contemporaneous administrative interpretation is entitled to great consideration by [77 Cal. App. 3d 42] the courts engaged in construing a statute. (Noroian v. Department of Administration (1970) 11 Cal. App. 3d 651, 655 [89 Cal. Rptr. 889] and cases there cited.)
Our analysis of the meaning of section 21102 finds further support in the language contained in the recent decision of People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Bosio (1975) 47 Cal. App. 3d 495 [121 Cal. Rptr. 375], where, in construing the minimum requirement imposed under section 21102 determining the application of section 21100 to an "on-going project," the court stated (at p. 512): "The language of these two sections is unambiguous and mandatory. What they literally provide is that an EIR is required before any state agency proceeds 'to carry out' any environmentally significant project in respect of which either a request for or an authorization of funds is required after the effective date of CEQA. The only exemption provided is for 'funds appropriated in the Budget Act,' ..." (Italics added.)
[5c] We thus conclude that neither section 21102 nor any other provision of CEQA and its Guidelines requires that a state agency such as The University support its request for funds to be appropriated in the Budget Act by simultaneous submission of a completed EIR.
There remains the related question whether, as contended by Mount Sutro, the PPGs constitute the regular project reports contemplated within section 21105 (ante). As an integral part of its argument regarding construction of section 21105, Mount Sutro contends that the major role of the PPGs in the review and budgetary process render them in effect the principal documents upon which project planning decisions were based and budgetary determinations reached leading to the "inescapable conclusion" they constituted the regular project reports mentioned and were required to include a prepared EIR "as a part [there]of" as specified by the statute. In contrast, The University argues that the sole function served by a PPG is as a preliminary planning and feasibility document utilized by staff personnel in the planning and review process and is never submitted to nor considered by the regents during the critical decision-making stage; that to construe it otherwise would result in costly and unnecessary preparation of EIRs fn. 22 (see Kleppe v. Sierra Club, supra, 427 U.S. 390) and by reason of its early preparation would [77 Cal. App. 3d 43] tend to frustrate the very purpose of CEQA in failing to provide adequate data for environmental review.
Since a number of PPGs were prepared, revised and considered throughout the planning process, University argues that the trial court acted arbitrarily in making findings singling out the subject PPGs as the regular project reports within the meaning of section 21105 (findings Nos. 12, 13 and 15). While we entertain some doubt as to the validity of that determination, fn. 23 we are bound under rudimentary principles on appeal to accept those factual findings where--as here--substantial evidence exists in support thereof. (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal. 3d 920, 925 [101 Cal. Rptr. 568, 496 P.2d 480]; Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co. (1935) 3 Cal. 2d 427, 429 [45 P.2d 183]; Bancroft-Whitney Co. v. McHugh (1913) 166 Cal. 140, 142 [134 P. 1157].) [7b] However, such circumstance does not affect any of the conclusions we have reached which are otherwise dispositive of the issues presented. As discussed herein, adequate EIRs were timely prepared and submitted to the decision-making agency in compliance with CEQA and its Guidelines; the reports were regularly considered and duly certified by that agency in the course of review and approval of the projects, and became "available to the Legislature." In accordance with established practices and procedures, the PPGs in question--while not submitted to the regents--were included as a part of the budget materials transmitted to the State Department of Finance in conjunction with the approval requests for funding in the Budget Act; thus none of the funds so appropriated were released until after the regents had considered and approved the EIRs and schematic drawings in the final stage of the review process. Apart from serving as a vehicle intended to assure consideration of the EIRs during the planning and review process, we cannot say that any error in failing to include the subject PPGs (as regular project reports) throughout a review process otherwise in substantial compliance with CEQA constitutes an abuse of discretion within the meaning of section 21168.5. (See No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 13 Cal. 3d 68, 88.)
For all the reasons discussed, we conclude that in determining and certifying the final EIRs for the Moffitt Hospital and school of dentistry [77 Cal. App. 3d 44] projects, The University proceeded in compliance with the applicable provisions of CEQA and its Guidelines. The trial court erred in reaching a contrary determination and in granting injunctive relief by its judgment of December 16, 1975. Accordingly, we must reverse such judgment. Our decision renders it unnecessary to reach the merits of the issues presented in Mount Sutro's related appeal from the orders vacating the injunctions and said appeal is dismissed. The motion to take judicial notice is denied.
Judgment reversed. The University as prevailing party herein shall recover its costs on appeal.
Elkington, J., and Broussard, J., concurred.
FN 1. Unless otherwise specified, all code section references are to the Public Resources Code and Guideline section references to title 14, California Administrative Code.
FN 2. Two additional causes of action challenging other projects were abandoned during trial.
FN 3. Section 21168.5 now provides as follows: "In any action or proceeding, other than an action or proceeding under Section 21168, to attack, review, set aside, void or annual a determination, finding, or decision of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with this division, the inquiry shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence." (The 1976 amendment added the word "finding" following "determination" in the first sentence.)
FN 4. Section 21108 provides in relevant part that "[w]henever a state agency ... approves or determines to carry out a project which is subject to ... [CEQA], it shall file notice of such approval or ... determination with the Secretary of the Resources Agency. Such notice shall indicate ... whether the project will, or will not, have a significant effect on the environment and ... whether an [EIR] has been prepared ..."
FN 5. The injunction provisions specifically mentioned a number of previously executed written service contracts within its prohibition.
FN 6. We summarize the substance of the conditions imposed to achieve such compliance with CEQA as follows: (1) a rereview and reconsideration of the existing PPG's and final EIRs by designated administrative officials of The University and submission of their collective recommendations to the chancellor of the San Francisco campus concerning continuance of the proposed projects or their alternatives; (2) upon the chancellor's recommendation, the PPGs and EIRs were to be transmitted to the systemwide administration with the request that the regents reconsider the current budget and program related to these particular improvement projects; (3) the reconsideration proposal, including the PPGs and EIRs, were to be reviewed and coordinated by the office of the vice president with designated administrative officials and planning and program review board; comments on the proposal were to be then transmitted to the office of budgetary planning; (4) a proposed action item for the regents was to be submitted to the president for his review and approval, and then forwarded to the regents for their approval or disapproval and reconsideration of their prior approval of the projects.
FN 7. Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 authorizes an appeal "... (f) From an order ... dissolving an injunction, ..."
FN 8. Certain related proceedings should here be noted. In chronological sequence: (1) following the instant judgment of December 16, 1975, University filed a petition for mandamus with this court and an alternative writ issued. In the interim the court made its order vacating the injunctions thereby mooting the proceedings; the petition was accordingly denied in an unpublished opinion filed July 20, 1976 (1 Civ. 38165); (2) following the second judgment of April 28, 1976, Mount Sutro petitioned this court for a writ of supersedeas to reinstate the original judgment and to stay the projects authorized by the later judgment; this petition was denied on July 9, 1976 and by the Supreme Court on August 13, 1976 (Mount Sutro v. Court of Appeal, 1 Civ. 38165); (3) Mount Sutro renewed its petition for supersedeas herein which was denied by this court on June 20, 1977, and by the Supreme Court on July 20, 1977.
FN 9. The University has filed a motion requesting we take judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452, subdivision (d), 455 and 459, of certain documents filed in a related action entitled Inner Sunset Action Committee v. Matthews, now pending in the federal Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit); it is contended that these documents are relevant to the issue of mootness. Having reviewed certified copies of said documents, we are satisfied they are not of any substantial consequence in determining such issue or any other issue in the appeal. Accordingly, we deny the motion.
FN 10. Section 15790 provides in pertinent part: "The board shall determine if construction, improvements, ... shall be undertaken ..."
Section 15792 provides that upon such determination "... the Director of Finance ... shall allot to the University of California the amount required to perform the work approved for the University ... [such work] to be performed in the manner provided by law."
FN 11. Section 21082 generally requires each public agency to promulgate procedures to assure compliance with CEQA and its guidelines; section 15050 of the guidelines details minimum objectives, criteria and procedures to be set forth in such adopted implementing procedures in evaluating projects and in preparing environmental documents.
FN 12. The university procedures for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended February 15, 1974, states as its objectives the following:
"II. OBJECTIVES
"The objectives of The Regents in approving these procedures are to ensure:
"A. That in the planning for each University project, environmental concerns are taken into account as early as possible and throughout the planning process.
"B. That each University project is evaluated as objectively as possible to determine the need for an EIR.
"C. That, if an EIR is required, it is in full compliance with the spirit and intent of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended.
"D. That is, if an EIR is prepared, it will provide detailed information on the significant environmental consequences and if relevant, the social and economic consequences of the proposed project. The EIR shall examine the means for reducing any adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project to enable The Regents to decide if the project should proceed, be revised, or be abandoned, considering its objectives, its consequences and the alternatives available."
Included in section III(E) of the provisions of the amended procedures, which achieve these objectives, are the following:
"12. The Final EIR shall be reviewed by the President. If the President, in consultation with General Counsel, finds the Final EIR sufficient, the EIR will be recommended to The Regents for certification. The project may not proceed until the Final EIR has been certified by The Regents. This certification shall include the finding that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State guidelines.
"13. In their review, The Regents shall consider the contents of the Final EIR and make a decision to proceed with, revise, or abandon, the project on the basis of the objectives stated in these procedures. The Regents shall not certify a Final EIR for a project which involves adverse consequences to the environment if these consequences can be mitigated in a feasible manner or if feasible alternatives are available; it is recognized that while CEQA requires that overriding consideration be given to preventing environmental damage, The Regents may balance other public objectives in determining whether and how a project should be approved.
"14. The Regents may elect to send the Final EIR back to the President for resolution of elements of disagreement or dissatisfaction."
FN 13. We note that by amendment to this section filed in October 1976, it is now mandatory that such initial study be conducted and that "[a]ll phases of project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered" in such study.
FN 14. The University developed special procedures for these hearings.
FN 15. Because this was the first meeting of the regents to consider an EIR, they were extensively briefed concerning their responsibilities under CEQA in certifying a final EIR.
FN 16. Section 21105 reads as follows: "The responsible state agency shall include the environmental impact report as a part of the regular project report used in the existing review and budgetary process. It shall be available to the Legislature. It shall also be available for inspection by the general public who may secure a copy thereof by paying for the actual cost of such a copy. It shall be filed by the responsible state agency with the appropriate local planning agency of any city, county, or city and county which will be affected by the project."
FN 17. It should be noted that the 1976 amendments to Guidelines section 15013 (mandatory on Jan. 1, 1977) substantially modified it to now provide that "environmental documents" (defined by § 15026.5 to include "Draft and Final EIRs, Initial Studies, ... Notices of Completion, and ... Determination.") should be prepared "as early as feasible" (instead of as early as possible) for incorporation into the planning process. Additionally, new subdivision (c) provides that the "environmental document preparation and review should [defined as advisory under § 15015, subd. (b)] be coordinated in a timely fashion with the existing planning, review and project approval processes being used by each public agency ..." and, in cases of state agencies, "... shall be included as part of the regular project report ... used in its existing review and budgetary process." (See also Guidelines, § 15086.) Section 21061.1 (added by Stats. 1976, ch. 1312, § 5.1, p. 5891) defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors."
These several provisions seem to strongly imply that the authority charged (the office of planning and research per § 21083) with development and implementation of the Guidelines had not previously construed CEQA (or the Guidelines) as imposing a specific time requirement, a construction normally entitled to great weight. (Coca-Cola Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1945) 25 Cal. 2d 918, 921 [156 P.2d 1].) Moreover, current definitions of environmental documents suggest something less than a full EIR may initially be used as a part of the "regular project report."
FN 18. In an attempt to develop a standard to evaluate such competing considerations, the court in S.I.P.I. fashioned a four-factor "balancing test" emphasizing (1) commercial feasibility of the technological development; (2) availability of information on effects of proposal and its alternatives; (3) extent of irreversible commitments during progress of the proposal; and (4) extent of severity of the environmental effects. (Scientists' Inst. for Pub. Info., Inc. v. Atomic Energy Com'n, supra, 481 F.2d 1079, 1094; accord: Sierra Club v. Morton (D.C.Cir. 1975) 514 F.2d 856, 880 [revd. sub nom., Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (49 L. Ed. 2d 576, 96 S.Ct. 2718)].) However, the vitality of the S.I.P.I. test was short-lived; in granting certiorari in Morton, the United States Supreme Court expressly rejected the balancing test as being without statutory authority. (Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 405-406 [49 L. Ed. 2d 576, 587-588, 96 S. Ct. 2718] (decided June 28, 1976).)
FN 19. University correctly points out that if the requested and approved appropriations for working drawings and partial construction must first be preceded by a fully prepared EIR, then a minimum delay of one year would be encountered in the funding cycle for each project and before the next stage of work could begin.
FN 20. Section 21102 provides in relevant part: "No state agency, board, or commission shall request funds, nor shall any state agency, board, or commission which authorizes expenditures of funds, other than funds appropriated in the Budget Act, authorize funds for expenditure for any project, other than a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted or funded, which may have a significant effect on the environment unless such request or authorization is accompanied by an environmental impact report ..."
FN 21. The facial inconsistency noted in Friends of Mammoth, supra, at page 262, footnote 5 (through use of the two words interchangeably), has since been eliminated by the 1976 amendments substituting "project" for "action." (See § 21100, subds. (a), (d), and (f).)
FN 22. The evidence indicated that only one out of three PPGs ever result in an actual project.
FN 23. Indeed, there is considerable force in University's argument that under the comprehensive review and budgetary process employed, the single most important report is the culminating "Agenda Item" presenting the proposed project to the regents for their consideration and final decision.


Young Adult Shelter: The Young Adult Extreme Winter Weather Shelter collects items to distribute to the young adults during their stay.
Welcome Home Kits: When individuals who have experienced long-term homelessness finally move into their home, they typically have none of the items needed. We want to provide kits to help ease their transition into housing and provide them with basic items that every home needs. For $250, the Network can purchase 75% of the items in this kit.
Cold Weather Supplies: These kits contain essential needs and hygiene items for individuals and families that are currently unsheltered.
A new system for donations has been developed to ensure that community members are fully aware of what the specific need is as well as having multiple options based on their ability to donate. Donors can sponsor a drive to collect kits or items or donate funds to purchase those items. Community members also have the option to donate directly to specific programs if they choose. The following interactive list is updated on a regular basis. To donate items, sponsor a drive, or donate funds to purchase these items, please contact Lee Murdock at 509-834-8173 or Lee@HomelessNetworkYC.org. Use the dashboard below to select a project.


text:
$0.00 (0.00%) Today
You can buy or sell RDY and other stocks, options, ETFs, and crypto commission-free!
About RDY
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. engages in the manufacture and marketing of pharmaceutical products. Read More It operates through the following segments: Global Generics, Pharmaceutical Services and Active Ingredients, Proprietary Products, and Others. The Global Generics segment consists of manufacturing and marketing of prescription and over-the-counter finished pharmaceutical products ready for consumption by the patient, marketed under a brand name or as generic finished dosages with therapeutic equivalence to branded formulations. The Pharmaceutical Services and Active Ingredients segment is comprised of manufacturing and marketing of active pharmaceutical ingredients and intermediates, also known as API or bulk drugs, which are principal ingredients for finished pharmaceutical products. The Proprietary Products segment focuses on research, development, and manufacture of differentiated formulations and new chemical entities. The Others segment includes the operations of the wholly-owned subsidiary of the company, Aurigene Discovery Technologies Limited, a discovery stage biotechnology company developing novel and best-in-class therapies in the fields of oncology and inflammation and which works with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in early-stage collaborations, brining drug candidates for pre-clinical development. The company was founded by Kallam Anji Reddy on February 24, 1984 and is headquartered in Hyderabad, India.
Gunupati Venkateswara Prasad
RDY News
Yahoo FinanceJun 14
Dr. Reddy's Inks Deal to Sell Neurology Branded Products
RDY Earnings
Available Jul 29, Pre-Market
More RDY News
Buy RDY
Sign up for a Robinhood Account to buy or sell RDY stock and options commission-free.
Trade RDY Options
Watch RDY

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Python CSV file: print missing elements compared to list. Prints entire column I am trying to check the column headers of the CSV file with a pre-defined list. If there is one missing, I want to print that element. Thus far I have this"
#import modules
import csv
from csv import reader

#set CSV file name
file_name = 'check.csv'

#declaring the error count variable starting at 0.
errors = 0

check = ['CLIENT', 'DATE_FROM', 'DATE_TO', 'NATION', 'PERSNUMBER', 'NAME_TEXT']

#open the CSV file
with open(file_name) as csvfile:
    reader = csv.reader(csvfile, delimiter = ';')

    limit = 0
    for header in reader:
        if limit == 1:
            break
        else:
            if header not in check:
                print("Unrecognised column", header)
                errors += 1
            else:
                pass
        limit += 1

print('Header validation finished.')
if errors == 0:
    print('No missing or odd headers')
else:
    print(errors, 'errors encountered.' )

The output is this:
Unrecognised column ['CLIENT', 'DATE_FROM', 'PERSNUMBER', 'DATE_TO', 'NATION', 'NAME_TEXT', 'SLT_SYSID']

The CSV file contains all these columns, but the 'SLT_SYSID' is "extra'. Nevertheless, it prints the entire row, instead of just the missing value.
Whenever I run a test script like this:
item = ['Cheese','Cake',0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
z = [0, 'Cheese']

for element in item:
    if element not in z:
        print(element)

Output:
Cake
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

It works fine. I am thinking it has to do something with reading the CSV file?
Any tips or suggestions are welcome.
Cheers!

A: You can use sets here. You can make check a set instead of a list and then you only read the first row of the file and convert that to a set to enable easy comparisons, eg:
import csv

file_name = 'check.csv'
check = {'CLIENT', 'DATE_FROM', 'DATE_TO', 'NATION', 'PERSNUMBER', 'NAME_TEXT'}

with open(file_name) as fin:
    csvin = csv.reader(fin, delimiter=';')
    header = set(next(csvin, set()))

You can then check if what you're expecting is what's present:
if check == header:
    print('ok!')

Otherwise, you can take the difference between what you're expecting and what you have and its inverse and print those out, eg:
else:
    missing = check - header
    extra = header - check
    print('missing ({}):'.format(len(missing)), missing)
    print('extra ({}):'.format(len(extra)), extra)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Q: Не работает запрос if ($result = mysqli_query($db, "SELECT alias FROM env8g_content WHERE alias !== $page_alias")) {
    $query = "INSERT INTO env8g_content (title,alias,introtext,state,sectionid,catid,created,created_by,publish_up) values ($page_title,$page_alias,$page_edit,'1','0','9',$page_date,'982',$page_date)";
mysqli_query($db, $query);
}

Почему не работает, данные правильные.
A: WHERE alias !== $page_alias

замени на
WHERE alias != $page_alias

а вообще не совсем понятно что вы хотите получить первым запросом?
если совпадение то условие должно быть так
if (!($result = mysqli_query($db, "SELECT alias FROM env8g_content WHERE alias = $page_alias")))
{
    $query = "INSERT INTO env8g_content       (title,alias,introtext,state,sectionid,catid,created,created_by,publish_up)  values ($page_title,$page_alias,$page_edit,'1','0','9',$page_date,'982',$page_date)";
mysqli_query($db, $query);
}

а вообще на поле alias поставьте индекс уникальный- и сама MySQL будет проверять на уникальность поле и если что кидать ошибку - вам ее только обработать
кстати возможно вам поможет вставка с указанием директивы  IGNORE или ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE, зависит от логики приложения. Посмотрите тут


text:
Norah Jones "Live At Ronnie Scott's" out June 15
Keyboard Magazine
New York, NY (May 11, 2018)—Norah Jones first emerged on the world stage with the 2002 release of Come Away With Me, her self-described "moody little record" that introduced a singular new voice and grew into a global phenomenon, sweeping the 2003 GRAMMY Awards and signalling a paradigm shift away from the prevailing pop music of the time. Since then, Jones has sold nearly 50 million albums worldwide and become a 9-time GRAMMY-winner. She has released a series of critically acclaimed and commercially successful solo albums, as well as albums with her collective bands The Little Willies and Puss N Boots. Her music weaves a rich tapestry that combines the threads of several bedrock styles of American music: country, folk, rock, soul and jazz, frequently transcending genres. Jones has collaborated with artists as diverse as Willie Nelson, Outkast, Herbie Hancock, Foo Fighters, and Danger Mouse, and been described as "pop music's mistress of alchemy…" (The Independent).
Now with the DVD/Blu-ray release Live at Ronnie Scott's out June 15, Jones delights her fans with an intimate trio show with drummer Brian Blade and bassist Christopher Thomas in the iconic surroundings of the famed London jazz club Ronnie Scott's.
Impressive in its stripped-back, under-stated elegance, the show witnesses Jones' hypnotic reconnection with the piano. Returning to her jazz roots with much material from her most recent album, Day Breaks she opens with a searing rendition of "Sleeping Wild" and a set list including "After the Fall" and "Flipside", alongside a beautiful version of Duke Ellington's "Fleurette Africaine (African Flower)". Closing with her Grammy Award winning, internationally acclaimed hit, "Don't Know Why" and "I've Got To See You Again", the soulfully burning embers of these songs remain long after Jones has left the stage.
Day Breaks was met with universal acclaim upon its 2016 release. Rolling Stone awarded the album 4-stars calling it "a marvellous consolidation, floating buoyantly between past tradition and her own unique present." Another 4-star review in MOJO declared it "her masterpiece to date… small-hours jazz perfection… inspired and breathtaking."
Jones' subsequent world tour was met with similar raves with the Boston Globe declaring "Norah Jones has a way of being there when you need her… a warm, honeyed voice, right up against your ear, AutoTune-free and honest." Philadelphia Inquirer wrote "She put on a self-assured show that drew from all aspects of her career while finding focus seated at the piano in her sultry, smoky-voiced comfort zone." Los Angeles Daily News raved that "Jones has become a more relaxed and mature performer… she is masterful at never overplaying… Norah Jones keeps getting better with age."
Live at Ronnie Scott's track listing:
1. Sleeping Wild
2. Don't Be Denied
3. After The Fall
4. Sinkin' Soon
5. Out On The Road
6. And Then There Was You
7. It's A Wonderful Time For Love
8. Fleurette Africaine (African Flower)
9. Flipside
10. Day Breaks
11. Nightingale
12. Tragedy
13. Little Broken Hearts
14. Carry On
15. Don't Know Why
16. I've Got To See You Again
Bonus features on DVD & Blu-Ray include in-depth pre-show interview and bonus track, "Burn".
Blu-rayDvdRonnie Scott'snorah jones
Norah Jones Releases New Single "It Was You"
Norah Jones to Release "Begin Again" on April 12
VIDEO: Norah Jones "Flipside"
Norah Jones Releases New Single "Wintertime"
Norah Jones and Jeff Tweedy Release New Single "A Song With No Name"
R+R=NOW To Release Debut Album "Collagically Speaking" June 15
Norah Jones Announces March 2017 U.S. Tour Dates
Set to Perform on 2017 MusiCares Person of the Year Concert
Interview: Norah Jones
Jazz/pop phenom returns to the piano on her new album Day Breaks


At first glance, Ken Boyd may seem like an average comic book geek, living with his mother and working at an ice cream parlor to make ends meet. But Ken has a dirty little secret: He fantasizes about killing people.
Kevin Corrigan, Barry Bostwick, Karen Black, Leo Fitzpatrick, Ariel Glade, Lucy Davis, Eric Price, Lou Beatty Jr.


This week we're pleased to be joined by one of the most significant influencers in the virtualization . Duncan Epping, Chief Technologist in the Office of the CTO at VMware, joins us to talk about his journey from indy punk websites to significant influence in our community.
We're so happy to have the brains behind YellowBricks and a collection of incredible books join us this week. Thanks for listening!
Podcast 5: Metrics: How much of that is science vs the black arts?


text:
Q: Exception while creating custom object using Salesforce CRUD Metadata API I am getting the following exception when I try to create a Custom Object in Salesforce, using CRUD Matadata API.
     com.sforce.ws.SoapFaultException: Must specify a {http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance}
 type attribute value for the {http://soap.sforce.com/2006/04/metadata}metadata element
        at com.sforce.ws.transport.SoapConnection.createException(SoapConnection.java:205)
        at com.sforce.ws.transport.SoapConnection.receive(SoapConnection.java:149)
        at com.sforce.ws.transport.SoapConnection.send(SoapConnection.java:98)
        at com.sforce.soap.metadata.MetadataConnection.create(MetadataConnection.java:273)
        at com.sfo.service.SalesforceObjectBootstrap.createCustomObject(SalesforceObjectBootstrap.java:226)

I am using the code from this link, The only thing that I changed were the name of the Custom Object
http://www.salesforce.com/us/developer/docs/api_meta/Content/meta_calls_intro.htm
The exception occurs at this step
AsyncResult[] asyncResults = metadataConnection.create(new CustomObject[]{customObject});

The Custom object just before invoking the create method above has the following parameter values.
[CustomObject [Metadata  fullName='lead_5273_custom_reg__c'
]
 actionOverrides='{[0]}'
 articleTypeChannelDisplay='null'
 businessProcesses='{[0]}'
 customHelp='hey there help me'
 customHelpPage='null'
 customSettingsType='null'
 customSettingsVisibility='null'
 deploymentStatus='Deployed'
 deprecated='false'
 description='Created from backend Webcast API : Lead 5273 Custom Reg'
 enableActivities='false'
 enableDivisions='false'
 enableEnhancedLookup='false'
 enableFeeds='false'
 enableHistory='false'
 enableReports='false'
 fieldSets='{[0]}'
 fields='{[0]}'
 gender='null'
 household='false'
 label='Lead 5273 Custom Reg'
 listViews='{[0]}'
 nameField='[CustomField [Metadata  fullName='lead_5273_custom_reg__c'
]
 caseSensitive='false'
 customDataType='null'
 defaultValue='null'
 deleteConstraint='null'
 deprecated='false'
 description='field name for a metadata custom object'
 displayFormat='null'
 escapeMarkup='false'
 externalDeveloperName='null'
 externalId='false'
 formula='null'
 formulaTreatBlanksAs='null'
 inlineHelpText='null'
 label='Lead 5273 Custom Reg'
 length='0'
 maskChar='null'
 maskType='null'
 picklist='null'
 populateExistingRows='false'
 precision='0'
 referenceTo='null'
 relationshipLabel='null'
 relationshipName='null'
 relationshipOrder='0'
 reparentableMasterDetail='false'
 required='false'
 restrictedAdminField='false'
 scale='0'
 startingNumber='0'
 stripMarkup='false'
 summarizedField='null'
 summaryFilterItems='{[0]}'
 summaryForeignKey='null'
 summaryOperation='null'
 trackFeedHistory='false'
 trackHistory='false'
 type='Text'
 unique='false'
 visibleLines='0'
 writeRequiresMasterRead='false'
]
'
 namedFilters='{[0]}'
 pluralLabel='Lead 5273 Custom Regs'
 recordTypeTrackFeedHistory='false'
 recordTypeTrackHistory='false'
 recordTypes='{[0]}'
 searchLayouts='null'
 sharingModel='ReadWrite'
 sharingReasons='{[0]}'
 sharingRecalculations='{[0]}'
 startsWith='null'
 validationRules='{[0]}'
 webLinks='{[0]}'
]

I used the method mentioned here to generate the WSDL files and its java skeleton.
http://www.salesforce.com/us/developer/docs/api_meta/Content/meta_quickstart.htm#topic-title-sample-code
My code exactly matches the example provided above. I simply copy pasted the whole thing.
I found this link, which mentioned the same exception. But this link is relating to creating a Folder.
http://boards.developerforce.com/t5/Java-Development/Metadata-API-errors-Must-specify-a-type-attribute-value-for-the/td-p/175253
Please let me know how to solve this problem.

A: I've not played with this myself, but from the looks of the exception, the MetaData block here:
[CustomObject [Metadata  fullName='lead_5273_custom_reg__c']

needs to contain the object type, which I'm assuming in this case is CustomObject__c (all custom objects have the __c suffix), so maybe try the following:
[CustomObject [Metadata  fullName='lead_5273_custom_reg__c' type='CustomObject__c']

Unless of course, fullname is actually the object name, which could be a possibility.


Is it true that a random graph's degree gives Poission distribution?
In many documents, it is said that a random graph's degree follows Poisson distribution. However, my numerical calculation contradicts with the fact.
QUESTION: It is really true that a random graph's degree gives Poission distribution? If so, what point is wrong with my analysis?
Browse other questions tagged graph-theory random-graphs or ask your own question.
does a power law degree distribution imply graphs are sparse?
What graph model gives this degree distribution?


Under this program, vacant properties are purchased, renovated, and sold to new owner-occupants. Depending upon the source of funds used, the purchase of these properties may be income restricted. See below for houses that were a part of our program and new residents now call home.
SNHS has a partnership with the Wicomico County Career Technology Education (CTE) program at Parkside High School. This program teaches students various skills that are required to build a home such as HVAC, carpentry, electric work etc… Each skill is then combined to complete a house which is typically placed on a property owned by SNHS and sold to new owner-occupants. The most recent completion by the students is located at 705 Delaware Avenue in Salisbury.


text:
You are here: Home / Analysis / Kenneth Arnold's alien UFO reflections imply time's bidirectional arrow
Kenneth Arnold's alien UFO reflections imply time's bidirectional arrow
January 14, 2015 By Jon Kelly 6 Comments
By Jon Kelly
NewsInsideOut.com
Vancouver, BC – An exclusive video published to YouTube on June 18, 2014, purported to reveal alien origins behind what the Atlantic magazine had cited as a 1947 UFO incident that "introduced the world to flying saucers." The unprecedented video report filtered pilot Kenneth Arnold's spoken witness testimony through a lossless digital audio mirror to demonstrate his unconscious sleep talking-like narrative indicating contact with "alien UFOs" during three separate interviews recorded over a thirty year period. This new evidence emerged prior to publication of scientific research suggesting how the thermodynamic arrow of time points in two distinct directions.
Authenticating the pilot's testimony in the absence of any photographic or other instrumental record offered significant progress in a stagnant research climate where legacy UFO scientists demanded improved methods of witness interrogation. In his evaluation of Project Blue Book as an attempt by the United States Air Force to cover up valid phenomena, astronomer and former United States government UFO scientist Dr. J. Allen Hynek once cited the absence of any Blue Book-improved method of comprehensive witness interrogation.
This critique suggested how Dr. Hynek envisioned possible witness testimony rich in additional details being overlooked by investigators intent upon enforcing an official doctrine of ignorance and denial regarding the existence of UFOs (along with implications of intelligent operators). Evidence of such doctrine can be found in the Durant Report from the CIA Robertson Panel of 1953 which recommended a policy of public smear campaigns targeting individuals claiming UFO sightings and extraterrestrial contact.
On January 12, 2015, researcher and media producer John Greenewald announced his publication of the government archives to The Black Vault website, stating "I am very excited to announce that after months of collecting, programming and converting, I've completed a database of 130,000 pages, consisting of more than 10,000 cases, of the Project Blue Book files (including Sign and Grudge). Although some sites exist out there with some of these files, many are not complete, nor do they have the records in a searchable, .PDF format. This new site has it all, is easily navigable, searchable, and free."
Click here to watch "Decrypting Kenneth Arnold's Aliens": "Produced by a veteran Mt. Adams wilderness region UFO videographer and internationally acclaimed speech analyst, this video takes an unprecedented look at how, in the absence of any photographic or other instrumental evidence gathered in support of Kenneth Arnold's personal UFO narrative, the authenticity of this case can be established using lossless digital mirror filtering that allows observers to study audible reflections of unconscious sleep talking-like communications."
On June 24, 1947, private aircraft operator Kenneth Arnold told staff at an air strip in Yakima, Washington, how he saw nine supersonic UFOs traveling in formation between Mt. Rainer and Mt. Adams earlier that afternoon. He would participate in a number of subsequent media interviews over a period of thirty years, of which at least three are available online. The new video draws from his June 26, 1947, KWRC radio interview, a May, 1949, CBS Radio Special Report along with on-camera statements reportedly offered during the June 24, 1977, First International UFO Congress in Chicago.
The video subjects these recordings of Kenneth Arnold's spoken testimony to lossless digital mirror filtering whereby portions of the audio reveal apparently intelligible phrases encrypted backwards within his speech. It is a matter of public record that this innovative analytic procedure (popularized through late-night talk radio during the 1990's) has revealed the signatures of unconscious sleep talking-like communications disclosing verifiably factual information characterized by military, forensic and clinical precision that anticipated details of the Iraq War, identified the BTK Killer and disclosed Edward Snowden's UFOs.
Three recurring incidents of any event can invoke notions of planned intelligent actions. Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient Norman Mineta has illustrated his personal plan-detecting methodology by citing the rule of three on a number of occasions as expressed in the maxim "omne trium perfectum" (Latin: "Everything that comes in groups of three is complete").
"When you see one of something happen, it's an accident. When you see two of the same thing happening, it's a trend. When you see three, it's a plan," said the former transportation secretary.
By such a Mineta standard it can be understood that multiple incidents of the term "alien" encrypted backwards within the recorded spoken testimony of pilot and UFO witness Kenneth Arnold over a 30-year period are no accident and not simply a pattern but are in fact indicative of planned communications leading to the unfoldment of human consciousness and the integration of modern civilization with a larger cosmic society.
The publication of new evidence in support of pilot Kenneth Arnold's 1947 UFO claims provided new and unprecedented insight into a case that evidenced the power of terrestrial media to capture the public imagination (in what has now become a meme-driven online environment). Concurrently, reported secret messages describing aliens and UFOs appear to contradict orthodox notions of time both in the production of backwards real-time encryption and in transmitting acronyms that would not be formalized until the next decade, years after their appearance in the 1947 KWRC radio interview.
While scientists including Professor & Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies at the UC Irvine School of Social Sciences Kourosh Saberi acknowledge human speech as a multidimensional stimulus, there is presently no published neurological theory that explains the existence of these communications as native to brain performance in human speech behavior. The messages also appear in defiance of the arrow of time as defined by physics, in which time and all time-dependent events flow in one direction only, from past to present to future. The notion of a past which itself originates from the future appears to evade such discussions.
Two distinct, symmetric and opposite arrows of time were recently identified in research that suggests how time's arrow may move concurrently in two directions. Those findings published this past October in Physical Review Letters explained how a simple "big bang" computer simulation demonstrated the influence of Newtonian gravity on particles expanding outwards along two temporal pathways.
APS/Alan Stonebraker
"The authors study one of the simplest possible systems: a collection of N point particles interacting through Newtonian gravity. Their only assumptions are that the total energy (potential plus kinetic) and the total angular momentum of the system are zero. From earlier numerical simulations and analytic analysis, it is known that in the distant future, such a system tends to break up into weakly interacting subsystems—typically, pairs of masses in Keplerian orbits. Starting with such a dispersed system and running time backwards, one might expect that it would coalesce in the past into a state of high density. Barbour and his coauthors show analytically that this expectation is right: for almost every initial configuration of masses, there is a unique moment of minimum size and maximum uniformity. From this point, the system expands outward, approximately symmetrically in both directions of time."
If the term UFO was officially created in 1953 by the United States Air Force, it also appears in the secret messages derived from a 1947 radio broadcast. This observation may represent wishful thinking and bias on the part of the observer or could provide further evidence of time-independent functions of the human brain in which the past, present and future are all perceived as elements of a singular continuum.
The filtering procedure used to mirror Kenneth Arnold's spoken testimony has been cited above for its power to forecast future events. Perhaps the apparently time-independent nature of these communications lend themselves best to revealing information that resides beyond the horizon of conventional human time perception, disclosing now-common acronyms that would not come into usage until six years later.
The following partial transcript of Kenneth Arnold's three interviews describing the events of June 24, 1947, was edited for clarity.
Aliens won't attack: (1947) As I kept looking at them I kept looking for their tails. They didn't have any tails. I thought, well, maybe something's wrong with my eyes. I turned the plane around and opened the window and looked out the window and sure enough I couldn't find any tails on them. The whole observation of these particular ships didn't last more than about two and a half minutes. I could see them only plainly when they seemed to tip their wing (or whatever it was) and the sun flashed on them.
Saw my spaceship. A UFO: (1947) They looked something like a pie plate that was cut in half with sort of a convex triangle in the rear. I thought that maybe they're jet planes with just the tails painted green or brown and didn't think too much of it but kept on watching them. They didn't fly in the conventional formation that's taught in our army. They seemed to weave in and out right above the mountain tops. I would say that they even went down into the canyons in several instances probably 100 feet.
Aliens. Listen. Laugh. They're real: (1949) They passed almost directly in front of me but at a distance of about 23 miles (which is not very great in the air). I judged the wingspan to be at least 100 feet across. The sighting did not particularly disturb me at the time except that I had never seen planes of that type.
Alien. Need the plan: (1977) Right here we've seen something. I've seen something. Hundreds of pilots have seen something in the skies. We have dutifully reported these things. And we have to have 15 million witnesses before anybody is going to look into the problem seriously? Why this is utterly fantastic. This is more fantastic than flying saucers or people from Venus or anything as far as I'm concerned.
[This article originally appeared as "Kenneth Arnold's aliens in the mirror transcend flying saucer cover-ups" in the Vancouver UFO Examiner for June 18, 2014.]
#Artists for #Disclosure founder cites deep spirituality in UFO contact
Edward Snowden's UFOs Part 1: NSA PRISM mined UFO data
Edward Snowden's UFOs Part 2: Psychic human ETs revealed
Edward Snowden's UFOs Part 3: Whistleblower's link to UFOs confirmed
Flying saucer UFOs over Vancouver and the Pleiadian pilot who flies them redux
Filed Under: Analysis, Arrow of Time, CIA, Cold War, Consciousness, Disclosure, Energy, Exopolitics, Flying Saucers, Kenneth Arnold, News, Opinion, Project Blue Book, Tech, UFO, US, Video Tagged With: analysis, Arrow of Time, Cascadia, CIA, communications, consciousness, Contact, Extraterrestrial, Flying Saucer, investigation, journalism, Kenneth Arnold, Project Blue Book, UFO
Adolfo Rios Pita Giurfa says
It means nothing, as most probably as it has been demonstrated, already in that time, the US had acquired the technology to build these crafts. And, as we all remember, all the 1950´s UFO "models" had three round protuberances at their inferior side: two opposites Tesla´s scalar coils and a third one for purposes of maneuvering the craft. http://www.giurfa.com/arrangement.jpg
'Marfa Reflections' trailer: The government built a temple on a remote Texas desert | NewsInsideOut says:
[…] Kenneth Arnold's alien UFO reflections imply time's bidirectional arrow […]
Precognitive UFO dreams and ET psi near Vancouver City Hall - NewsInsideOut says:
[…] The "Close Encounters" model originated by Dr. J. Allen Hynek attempted to describe human contact with extraterrestrials in terms of various articulated stages. A UFO scientist employed by the US federal government Dr. Hynek authored "The UFO Experience – A Scientific Inquiry" in which he stated how "[The 1960's US Air Force Project] Blue Book was a "cover-up" to the extent that the assigned problem was glossed over for one reason or another. In my many years association with Blue Book, I do not recall ever one serious discussion of methodology, of improving the process of data gathering or of techniques of comprehensive interrogation of witnesses." […]
'UFO Mountain' trailer: 'Odyssey'-like contact in Cascadian adventure of a lifetime - NewsInsideOut says:
[…] look at results from a five-year instrumental UFO study at the location of Kenneth Arnold's 1947 flying saucers incident. "UFO Mountain" promises new insights into the Columbia River Gorge UFO experience […]
UFO night vision skywatch for Vancouver, BC online archive - NewsInsideOut says:
'Everybody's a healer' at Emotional Alchemy Summer Solstice 2015 - NewsInsideOut says:


text:
April 5, 2010 February 20, 2020 Grim D. Reaper #grmdrpr
Review: 'How to Train Your Dragon'
While not quite up to the bar set with Kung Fu Panda, DreamWorks Animation again proves that Pixar no longer stands alone at the top of CG animated storytelling.
As the least Viking-like young man in a Viking settlement, Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) dreams of the day when he can help defend his village against the local predators: dragons. Unfortunately, he is neither strong nor burly and must rely on cleverness, something that gets him (and the village) into trouble fairly often. When luck presents Hiccup with the opportunity to be a real dragon slayer, he discovers his heart isn't in it and that the dragons aren't the mindless killing machine the Vikings believe they are. But how can one lad end the needless bloodshed between man and beast when no one will listen?
Ah, misunderstanding, the catalyst of drama. When everyone takes their slights personally, anger often flares up, and once it gets going, it's even harder to stop. While the surface plot seems to deal with a young man and his dragon, there's a lot more going on beneath the surface, likely in no small part to Lilo & Stitch directors Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders. It may be animated entertainment, but there's a lot of emotion going on here that doesn't pull any punches.
The vocal cast features a good blend of actors and comedians who, if this wasn't an animated feature, might be cast in the same roles for a live action film. Gerard Butler as village chief Stoick roars when he talks; he had plenty of practice leading the charge in 300. Craig Ferguson lends his late night banter to Gobber, a Viking missing a few limbs but none of his pride (and a penchant for stating exactly what's on his mind.) Hiccup's fellow dragon slayers in training include voice work from America Ferrera, Jonah Hill, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Kristen Wiig, so there's no shortage of one-liners being spewed while enduring on-the-job survival training.
The production design is also amazing. By focusing on a tiny portion of their world, more detail in how the village is set up to fight off the dragons can be featured. The dragons themselves are made up of varied species that each have their quirks and dangers, from tiny nipping dragons that act like teething puppies to black night furies that spit fireballs and act like over-sized felines. With all the diversity and ingenuity packed into the film, the tiny island feels like a part of a huge world.
In addition to the breathtaking spectacle of soaring over rocky villages and repelling dragon attacks (the 3D version really enhances these bits), the story also touches on an often taboo subject for these kinds of films: the consequences of battle. Kids are too often shown that warriors come away from war unscathed, but a character like Gobber, missing both an arm and lower leg, not only calls attention to the fact head on but presents the character as having overcome the loss and continuing to contribute. It's as positive a message as any other in this film, and is handled with the same care as all the rest of it. But make no mistake; the real reason to see this in theaters is for the ride.
(a three and half skull recommendation out of four)
Previous Review: 'The Princess and the Frog'
Next Review: 'Hot Tub Time Machine'


In 2010 Project 333 started with my desire to live with less, and a single blog post on Be More with Less inviting people to join a minimalist fashion challenge.
I didn't know what to expect. I mostly thought people would think I was crazy. And some did. I also thought people might think that dressing with 33 items or less for 3 months was extreme. And some did.
The best part was that most people thought it was interesting, challenging and fun and joined the challenge. And then they started to share their capsule wardrobes, stories of dressing with less, and unique Project 333 experiences.
Today people are practicing Project 333 in more than 45 states in the US and 40 countries around the world. You gave this minimalist fashion project wings, and the world took notice. Project 333 has been featured in Unclutter Your Life by the Associated Press on ABC.com, Forbes.com, and other print and online venues. It's also been on The Today Show website, on countless beautiful blogs, and in other awesome articles.
And now, Project 333 is featured in O, The Oprah Magazine.
If you are here for the first time after reading the article, welcome!
If you've been celebrating with me since I announced the big news last month on Be More with Less, thank you.
As this fashion project has evolved from a personal challenge to a big adventure, 3 core values have unfolded.
A simpler closet is the gateway to a simpler life. Start with your wardrobe and be amazed at how simplicity will seep into every area of your life.
Like and follow the Project 333 Facebook Page for inspiring quotes, capsule wardrobes and stories of dressing with less.
Be inspired visually on Pinterest with images of capsule wardrobes and other simplicity tips and tricks.
Take the course for extra support, motivation, and entertainment with written, audio and video inspiration.
Some people start right away. Some join every season. (Jan/Apr/Jul/Oct) Some follow the rules. Others break the rules and some just like to watch for a while. All of those options are great.
This isn't about how cute your shoes are or how beautiful that cashmere sweater you got on clearance looks hanging in your closet. This minimalist fashion project reveals your true beauty. The beauty that shines from your heart and soul; your core, because nothing is getting in the way.
Dressing with less allows you to peel back the layers and be you. And that is what real beauty is all about. YOU.
I'm really looking forward to hearing about your Project 333 experience and journey to a simpler life.


1. Remove multidisk couplings of K1, K2 and KZ.
2. Turn off bolts 7a and remove the oil pump 7. Turn off two opposite bolts in the case of the oil pump and take the oil pump from the hydrotransformer case, slightly tapping with the plastic hammer.
3. Turn off bolts oh and take a multidisk brake B1 6 of the hydrotransformer case. Turn off two opposite bolts in a multidisk brake of B1 and take it from the hydrotransformer case, slightly tapping with the plastic hammer.
4. Disconnect an intermediate plate 8 from the hydrotransformer 1 case.
1. Install an intermediate plate 8 on the hydrotransformer 1 case. The intermediate plate 8 can be used several times.
2. Wrap bolts of fastening of a multidisk brake B1 6 in the hydrotransformer 1 case. The adjusting provision of a multidisk brake B1 concerning the case of the hydrotransformer is defined by the directing finger on a multidisk brake of B1 (shooter).
3. Install the oil pump 7 and tighten bolts of its fastening.
4. Establish multidisk couplings of K1, K2 and KZ. On an illustration the oil channel E for coupling of K1 is shown.


Odometer is 21630 miles below market average! Priced below KBB Fair Purchase Price!
View this Used 2016 Volvo S60 in Lafayette, LA at Giles Volvo Cars. Serving drivers near New Iberia, Breaux Bridge and Broussard.


My first tutorial! How I draw wings. It was a request. This is part one! Sorry for the crappiness of the sketches, I stuck this together in about half an hour!... However, in the Bedrock, they will be dyed accordingly, and the white patches on the face will also be dyed. If an adult sheep has the opportunity, the chance of starting to eat grass is 1 in 1000 per game tick (1 in 50 regarding baby sheeps).
However, in the Bedrock, they will be dyed accordingly, and the white patches on the face will also be dyed. If an adult sheep has the opportunity, the chance of starting to eat grass is 1 in 1000 per game tick (1 in 50 regarding baby sheeps). how to create a chat room 28/08/2018 · It takes at least one full Minecraft 'day' (20 minutes or more) for piglets to mature. The appearance of a piglet is roughly similar to that of an adult pig, having the same sized heads, but noticeably smaller bodies. Piglets will stay around their parents until they mature, although the parents cannot protect the piglet(s) from harm.
10 best Minecraft images on Pinterest How to Draw Pig From Minecraft with Easy Step by Step Drawing Tutorial STEP 9 Going to use this as a template for a Christmas ornament using a Explore Minecraft Ideas, Minecraft Party, and more! How To Draw A Minecraft Pig Face Planet Minecraft Vie pic source Minecraft coloring pages - Free Large Images Books Worth Reading Printable Minecraft … how to draw heart shape in illustrator We are excitedly using this tutorial to make a minecraft pig!! We have the basic structure completed and now need to add the color. I will post a photo once it's completed. Thanks so much! We have the basic structure completed and now need to add the color.


text:
»Melhem honored with teaching scholar endowment
One Stop Shop for Student Success
Hani Melhem, professor of civil engineering, has been appointed the Darold and Debbie Davis Cornerstone Teaching Scholar in Civil Engineering. The purpose of this award is to honor Darold and Debbie Davis and to promote teaching excellence in the department of civil engineering.
With a specialty in structural engineering, his research focuses on artificial intelligence and information systems, computer-controlled testing, experimental analysis and fatigue and fracture of structures, and finite element and numerical modeling of structures with a goal to enhance and preserve the nation's infrastructure.
Melhem holds a bachelor's degree from Cairo University, and master's and doctoral degrees from the University of Pittsburgh, all in civil engineering.
He is a fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers, having served as president of the Kansas section of the organization. He has been recognized by the College of Engineering with both the Larry and Laurel Erickson Public Service Award, and the Charles S. Scholer Faculty Award.
A Letter from A.D. John Currie
Legislative update Feb. 22
Small savings can yield big results
Thirty-six K-State faculty members granted sabbatical leave
A.Q. Miller School of Journalism and Mass Communications mourns loss of Tom Gould
Highlights from the Feb. 9 Faculty Senate meeting
K-State Online: Walk-in help sessions Feb. 24
Harry Potter inspired benefit concert on Saturday, Feb. 27
Community invited to Distinguished Young Alumni presentations today
Prasad to present Commerce Bank Distinguished Graduate Faculty Award lecture
Kat Chats: 'Rock/Paper/XBox: Balancing Video Games and College Life'
Hip-hop pedagogue speaking at K-State today
Science on Tap: Biofuels
Volunteer, internship and employment opportunities at Fort Riley
K-State women's club volleyball holds fundraiser night at Buffalo Wild Wings
New Faculty Institute luncheon on March 2
Graduate students earn honors for making research understandable, enjoyable in 3 minutes or less
Human ecology professor receives 2016 3M Non-Tenured Faculty Award
Campus construction and maintenance
Service interruption notification: Ackert Hall heating and cooling