Cit. for Resp. Growth v. City

Concluding “we determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures” in a case where appellant sought writ under both sections

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

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

Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors

Finding trails agreement not separate agreement but subsequent activity encompassed in original project

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

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

Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors

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

In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Envtl. Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings

Explaining that “an EIR should not exclude an alternative from detailed consideration merely because it ‘would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives' ” unless it is otherwise infeasible or the lead agency has determined that it cannot meet the project's underlying fundamental purpose (quoting Guidelines § 1516.6(b))

Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield

In Bakersfield, the real parties in interest were private developers of two shopping mall projects, and the plaintiff challenged the city's project approvals based on inadequacy of the EIRs. (Id. at pp. 1194-1195.)

Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley

Remanding for reconsideration in light of clarified legal principles

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

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

Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority

Holding that “[w]hile an agency has the discretion under some circumstances to omit environmental analysis of impacts on existing conditions and instead use only a baseline of projected future conditions, existing conditions ‘will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant’ ”

Rule 8.200 - [Effective 1/1/2025] Briefs by parties and amici curiae