§Why CasetextPricing

CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION v. BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

Respondent’s Petition for Review

23 Cited authorities

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

    9 Cal.4th 559 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 585 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. Tobe v. City of Santa Ana

    9 Cal.4th 1069 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 449 times
    Holding that the terms camping, living, and store are not "vague ... when the purpose clause of the ordinance is considered and the terms are read in that context as they should be."

  3. Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish Game Com

    16 Cal.4th 105 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 176 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

  4. Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission

    41 Cal.4th 372 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 129 times   14 Legal Analyses
    In Muzzy Ranch, we were concerned with the level of detail required to apply the commonsense exemption from CEQA review.

  5. City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.

    176 Cal.App.4th 889 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 88 times   8 Legal Analyses
    In Long Beach, the court considered the argument that an EIR addressing the proposed construction of a high school to serve over 1,800 students was insufficient because it failed to discuss the project's "cumulative impacts on air quality and traffic 'and in turn, on staff and student health' " in light of already-existing emissions from nearby freeways.

  6. Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency

    103 Cal.App.4th 98 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 92 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding invalidation of certain CEQA Guidelines

  7. County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern

    127 Cal.App.4th 1544 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 67 times
    In County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544 (County Sanitation Dist. No. 2), three sanitation agencies (among others) filed a writ petition and a complaint challenging a County of Kern ordinance requiring heightened treatment standards for the application of sewage sludge on land located within the County's jurisdiction.

  8. Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City

    131 Cal.App.4th 1170 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting “the physical impacts of established levels of a particular use have been considered part of the existing environmental baseline”; thus, the agency needed only to analyze proposed increases in intensity or rate of use

  9. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino

    202 Cal.App.3d 296 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 82 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Having no relevant data on relevant issue evades duty to engage in environmental review

  10. Rental Housing Owners Assn. of Southern Alameda County, Inc. v. City of Hayward

    200 Cal.App.4th 81 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 31 times
    Rejecting Fourth Amendment challenge to ordinance allowing inspection absent consent only by way of an inspection warrant

  11. Section 15061 - Review for Exemption

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15061   Cited 22 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a) Once a lead agency has determined that an activity is a project subject to CEQA, a lead agency shall determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA. (b) A project is exempt from CEQA if: (1) The project is exempt by statute (see, e.g. Article 18, commencing with Section 15260). (2) The project is exempt pursuant to a categorical exemption (see Article 19, commencing with Section 15300) and the application of that categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in Section

  12. Section 15126.2 - Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15126.2   Cited 6 times

    (a) The Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project. An EIR shall identify and focus on the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment. In assessing the impact of a proposed project on the environment, the lead agency should normally limit its examination to changes in the existing physical conditions in the affected area as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or where no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis

  13. Section 15260 - General

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15260   Cited 2 times

    This article describes the exemptions from CEQA granted by the Legislature. The exemptions take several forms. Some exemptions are complete exemptions from CEQA. Other exemptions apply to only part of the requirements of CEQA, and still other exemptions apply only to the timing of CEQA compliance. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15260 1. New Article 18 (Sections 15260-15277) filed 7-13-83; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 83, No. 29). 2. Editorial correction of 7-13-83 order redesignating

  14. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer