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

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

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

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"

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))

Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry (Pacific Lumber Co.)

Noting that "the [California Board of Forestry] has the ultimate power of approval over a [THP]"

Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo

Rejecting challenge to agency's data-gathering efforts

Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange

In Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818 [ 173 Cal.Rptr. 602], the EIR for a proposed mining project stated that the mine would consume 12,000 to 15,000 gallons of water daily and that the local water district would supply it, but provided no information as to the impacts on water service elsewhere of supplying that amount of water to the mine.

Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection

Upholding discussion of pesticide use and related impacts

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