§Why CasetextPricing

Brief Opening

undefined

33 Cited authorities

  1. Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (Air Resources Board)

    9 Cal.4th 559 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 594 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it would be improper to take judicial notice of evidence that was both absent from the administrative record and not before the agency at the time of its decision because such evidence is not relevant

  2. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California

    47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 632 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an EIR must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion if it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project and the future expansion will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects

  3. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors

    52 Cal.3d 553 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 291 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that failure to make a timely comment does not excuse the lead agency from providing substantial evidence to fulfill its duty to identify and discuss project alternatives

  4. Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. Cty of Los Angeles

    11 Cal.3d 506 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 478 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Construing requirements of Gov. Code, § 65906 for zoning variances

  5. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield

    124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 174 times   14 Legal Analyses
    In Bakersfield, the real parties in interest were private developers of two shopping mall projects, and the plaintiff challenged the city's project approvals based on inadequacy of the EIRs. (Id. at pp. 1194-1195.)

  6. Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish Game Com

    16 Cal.4th 105 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 182 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Noting Office of Administrative Law's disapproval of regulatory action where agency's final statement of reasons failed to include any summary and response to public comments

  7. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

    13 Cal.3d 68 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 276 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Professing no “ question” of trial court's power in traditional mandamus to order interlocutory remand to agency for clarification of findings

  8. Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange

    131 Cal.App.4th 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 113 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding mitigation measure that requires construction to "meet 'exterior and interior noise standards' satisfactory to the manager of the county's building permit division insufficient" because "[n]o criteria or alternatives to be considered are set out. Rather, this mitigation measure does no more than require a report be prepared and followed, or allow approval by a county department without setting any standards."

  9. Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors

    91 Cal.App.4th 342 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 116 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing county must have power to modify land use plans

  10. Gentry v. City of Murrieta

    36 Cal.App.4th 1359 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 137 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Upholding sufficiency of agency's initial study

  11. Section 15000 - Authority

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15000   Cited 576 times   14 Legal Analyses

    The regulations contained in this chapter are prescribed by the Secretary for Resources to be followed by all state and local agencies in California in the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. These Guidelines have been developed by the Office of Planning and Research for adoption by the Secretary for Resources in accordance with Section 2108-3. Additional information may be obtained by writing: SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES ROOM 1311, 1416 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 These