§Why CasetextPricing

CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION v. SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (PEOPLE)

Appellant, The People, Answer Brief on the Merits

20 Cited authorities

  1. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

    549 U.S. 497 (2007)   Cited 1,152 times   97 Legal Analyses
    Holding that denials of petitions for rulemaking are judicially reviewable

  2. Cit. for Resp. Growth v. City

    40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 402 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Concluding “we determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures” in a case where appellant sought writ under both sections

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

    47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 620 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

  4. 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

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

    48 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 133 times   26 Legal Analyses
    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

  6. Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley

    60 Cal.4th 1086 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 112 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Remanding for reconsideration in light of clarified legal principles

  7. 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

  8. Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency

    103 Cal.App.4th 98 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 92 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding invalidation of certain CEQA Guidelines

  9. Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com

    13 Cal.3d 263 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 202 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "plaintiffs have standing 'to procure enforcement of a public duty, . . .'"

  10. City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University

    39 Cal.4th 341 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 80 times   19 Legal Analyses
    In City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341 our Supreme Court described the rules that governed the development of the Ford Ord property in 2006: "Fort Ord is a former United States Army base on the Pacific Coast, about five miles north of Monterey and 125 miles south of San Francisco....

  11. Section 134 - Metropolitan transportation planning

    23 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 114 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a regional transportation planning process and establishing requirements for expenditures of funds in a Transportation Improvement Program

  12. 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