§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 Supplemental Brief

23 Cited authorities

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

    47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 611 times   22 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. Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. Cty of Los Angeles

    11 Cal.3d 506 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 464 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Construing requirements of Gov. Code, § 65906 for zoning variances

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

    6 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 244 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. People v. Overstreet

    42 Cal.3d 891 (Cal. 1986)   Cited 279 times
    Reasoning that a statute should be construed "as favorably to the defendant as its language and the circumstance of its application reasonably permit"

  5. Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley

    60 Cal.4th 1086 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 110 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Remanding for reconsideration in light of clarified legal principles

  6. 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"

  7. California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District

    62 Cal.4th 369 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 79 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Finding deference warranted under Yamaha to an agency interpretation adopted by regulation and observing that notice-and-comment rulemaking under the California Administrative Procedure Act “subjects potential agency interpretations to procedural safeguards that foster accuracy and reliability”

  8. Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma

    6 Cal.App.4th 1307 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 104 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Concluding "evidence does not support a determination that . . . proposed site-specific project was either the same as or within the scope of the project, program, or plan described in the program EIR"

  9. Sequoyah Hills Homowners Assn. v. City of Oakland

    23 Cal.App.4th 704 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 86 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 719, the Oakland City Council found a project under consideration to be fully consistent with 14 of the 17 pertinent policies set forth in the Oakland Comprehensive Plan (OCP), although it was in conflict with three other policies.

  10. Moore v. California State Bd. of Accountancy

    2 Cal.4th 999 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 84 times
    Holding unlicensed accountants cannot hold themselves out to the public as "accountants"

  11. Section 15000 - Authority

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15000   Cited 547 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. Section 15384 - Substantial Evidence

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15384   Cited 53 times

    (a) "Substantial evidence" as used in these guidelines means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Whether a fair argument can be made that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is to be determined by examining the whole record before the lead agency. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is

  13. Section 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15162   Cited 38 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the