Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council

Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"

Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization

Holding that “administrative interpretation ... will be accorded great respect by the courts and will be followed it not clearly erroneous”

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

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 Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1203-1204, the court rejected Bakersfield's argument that the appeal, which challenged project approvals for two retail shopping centers, was rendered moot by the completion of the project. The court held that while the shopping centers were complete and several businesses were already in operation, the appeal was not moot because, among other reasons, "even at this late juncture full CEQA compliance would not be a meaningless exercise of form over substance."

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

Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley

Remanding for reconsideration in light of clarified legal principles

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’ ”

Association, Irritated v. Madera Co.

Upholding an EIR's biological impact conclusion because record established agency's expert reviewed relevant databases, “then conducted a field study, after which she analyzed her findings and prepared a written report”

Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply