§Why CasetextPricing

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

Respondent’s Reply to Supplemental Brief

6 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

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

    13 Cal.3d 68 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 270 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

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

    62 Cal.4th 369 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 83 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”

  4. Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma

    6 Cal.App.4th 1307 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 105 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"

  5. Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre

    25 Cal.4th 165 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 65 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Imposing statutory prerequisites on voter-sponsored initiatives may be an impermissible burden on the electors' constitutional power to legislate by initiative

  6. Benton v. Board of Supervisors

    226 Cal.App.3d 1467 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 46 times   7 Legal Analyses
    In Benton, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d 1467, 277 Cal.Rptr. 481, for example, the Court of Appeal considered whether a proposal to relocate a winery that had previously been approved via negative declaration required the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Benton held that, under CEQA Guidelines section 15162, the question whether a subsequent or supplemental EIR was required depended on the effect of the proposed relocation; the changes were not an occasion to reopen the original environmental review of the winery project.