§Why CasetextPricing

NEIGHBORS FOR SMART RAIL v. EXPOSITION METRO LINE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY (LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION)

Real Parties in Interest, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board, Answer Brief on the Merits

37 Cited authorities

  1. Cit. for Resp. Growth v. City

    40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 402 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Concluding “we determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures” in a case where appellant sought writ under both sections

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

    47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 620 times   23 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. Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. Cty of Los Angeles

    11 Cal.3d 506 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 469 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Construing requirements of Gov. Code, § 65906 for zoning variances

  4. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors

    52 Cal.3d 553 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 284 times   5 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

  5. Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors

    87 Cal.App.4th 99 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 195 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Upholding EIR calling for developer payments to government fund as mitigation measure for traffic impacts

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

    124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 171 times   14 Legal Analyses
    In Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1203-1204, the court rejected Bakersfield's argument that the appeal, which challenged project approvals for two retail shopping centers, was rendered moot by the completion of the project. The court held that while the shopping centers were complete and several businesses were already in operation, the appeal was not moot because, among other reasons, "even at this late juncture full CEQA compliance would not be a meaningless exercise of form over substance."

  7. Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District

    48 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 133 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Concluding the doctrine of vested rights did not limit the agency's ability to establish an analytical baseline for a new project based on existing conditions, rather than prior permit standards

  8. California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova

    172 Cal.App.4th 603 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 120 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting as unreasonable interpretation of "coordination" to mean "consultation"

  9. San Franciscans v. City Cty., San Francisco

    102 Cal.App.4th 656 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 132 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Referring to "commercial and retail space" in describing downtown San Francisco's preservation policies

  10. Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange

    131 Cal.App.4th 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 112 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."