§Why CasetextPricing

FRIENDS OF THE COLLEGE OF SAN MATEO GARDENS v. SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

California Natural Resources Agency and Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Request for Judicial Notice

28 Cited authorities

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

    47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 621 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

  2. 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

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

    6 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 248 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the decision to not recirculate an EIR where new studies released after public review "merely serve to amplify . . . the information found in the draft EIR" and "do not alter th[e] analysis in any way"

  4. Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors

    8 Cal.3d 247 (Cal. 1972)   Cited 342 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the agency "is entitled to learn the contentions of interested parties before litigation is instituted . . .," but it is sufficient if other members of the public raised the issues to be litigated because then the agency would have had "its opportunity to act and to render the litigation unnecessary, if it had chosen to do so"

  5. Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish Game Com

    214 Cal.App.3d 1043 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 124 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting attempt "to circulate a document that simply swept the serious criticisms of the project under the rug"

  6. Fullerton Joint Union High School Dist. v. State Bd. of Ed.

    32 Cal.3d 779 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 124 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Applying strict scrutiny

  7. 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

  8. Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 3 Dist. Agricultural Assn.

    42 Cal.3d 929 (Cal. 1986)   Cited 80 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Expanding the size of an amphitheater from six to 10 acres, expanding capacity from 5,000 fixed seats to 7,000, and reorienting the stage, after passage of about two years

  9. Bowman v. City of Petaluma

    185 Cal.App.3d 1065 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 73 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Using an addendum to determine whether further environmental review is necessary is an appropriate way to fill a procedural gap in CEQA and the Guidelines

  10. San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. County

    155 Cal.App.3d 738 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 75 times
    In San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Inc. v. Countyof San Bernardino (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 738 [ 202 Cal.Rptr. 423], plaintiff Audubon Society successfully challenged the approval of a cemetery on the grounds that the environmental impact report was inadequate.

  11. Section 15000 - Authority

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15000   Cited 557 times   13 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

  12. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or

  13. Rule 8.252 - Judicial notice; findings and evidence on appeal

    Cal. R. 8.252   Cited 594 times

    (a)Judicial notice (1) To obtain judicial notice by a reviewing court under Evidence Code section 459, a party must serve and file a separate motion with a proposed order. (2) The motion must state: (A) Why the matter to be noticed is relevant to the appeal; (B) Whether the matter to be noticed was presented to the trial court and, if so, whether judicial notice was taken by that court; (C) If judicial notice of the matter was not taken by the trial court, why the matter is subject to judicial notice