administrative record for legal error in California

2026(CEQA Guidelines,4 § 15162, subd. (a)(1) & (2); Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596, 607 (Friends II).) “An appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence in a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, is the same as the trial court’s: The appellate court reviews the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision; in that sense appellate judicial review under CEQA is de novo.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412

2025Resources Code, § 21168.5.) Such an abuse is established ‘if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.’ ” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 426 .) “An appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence in a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, is the same as the trial court’s: The appellate court reviews the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision; in that sense appellate judicial r

2020(Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392-393, 407 (Laurel Heights).) We review the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence in a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, is the same as that of the trial court.

2016Resources Code, § 21168.5 . . . ; see Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1955) 9 Cal.4th 559, 568 ; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392-393 (Laurel Heights I).) “ ‘An appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence in a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, is the same as the trial court’s: The appellate court reviews the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision; in that sense appellate judicial review under CEQA is de novo. . . .

2016Resources Code, § 21168.5 . . . ; see Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1955) 9 Cal.4th 559, 568 ; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392-393 (Laurel Heights I).) “ ‘An appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence in a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, is the same as the trial court’s: The appellate court reviews the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision; in that sense appellate judicial review under CEQA is de novo. . . .

2015Resources Code,] § 21168.5; see Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court [(1995)] 9 Cal.4th [559,] 568 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 , 888 P.2d 1268 ]; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392-393 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 426 , 764 P.2d 278 ] (Laurel Heights I).) *232 “An appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence in a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, is the same as the trial court’s: The appellate court reviews the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision; in that sense appellate ju

2016(Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 924-925 ; Concerned Citizens of South Central L.A. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 .) “An appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence in a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, is the same as the trial court’s: [t]he appellate court reviews the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision; in that sense appellate judicial review under CEQA is de novo.” (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 427 ; see Association of Irritated

2014The parties seeking mandamus bear the burden of proving otherwise . . . .”].) *383 “An appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence in a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, is the same as the trial court’s: [t]he appellate court reviews the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision; in that sense appellate judicial review under CEQA is de nova.” (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 427 ; see Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 1390 [“ ‘The appellate court reviews the administrative record

2023Accordingly, we do not address Monterey’s determination that it was required only to consider the environmental impacts of the desalination plant itself. 17 such determinations. [Citation.] ‘The agency is the finder of fact and we must indulge all reasonable inferences from the evidence that would support the agency’s determinations and resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the agency’s decision.’ [Citation.] That deferential review standard flows from the fact that the agency has the discretion to resolve factual issues and to make policy decisions.” (California Native Plant Socie

2023Accordingly, we do not address Monterey’s determination that it was required only to consider the environmental impacts of the desalination plant itself. 17 such determinations. [Citation.] ‘The agency is the finder of fact and we must indulge all reasonable inferences from the evidence that would support the agency’s determinations and resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the agency’s decision.’ [Citation.] That deferential review standard flows from the fact that the agency has the discretion to resolve factual issues and to make policy decisions.” (California Native Plant Socie

2025Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.’ As a result of this standard, ‘The court does not pass upon the correctness of the EIR’s environmental conclusions, but only upon its sufficiency as an informative document.’ [Citation.]” [Citations.] “We may not set aside an agency’s approval of an EIR on the ground that an opposite conclusion would have been equally or more reasonable.” [Citation.] [¶] “An appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal e

2025Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.’ As a result of this standard, ‘The court does not pass upon the correctness of the EIR’s environmental conclusions, but only upon its sufficiency as an informative document.’ [Citation.]” [Citations.] “We may not set aside an agency’s approval of an EIR on the ground that an opposite conclusion would have been equally or more reasonable.” [Citation.] [¶] “An appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal e

2025Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.’ As a result of this standard, ‘The court does not pass upon the correctness of the EIR’s environmental conclusions, but only upon its sufficiency as an informative document.’ [Citation.]” [Citations.] “We may not set aside an agency’s approval of an EIR on the ground that an opposite conclusion would have been equally or more reasonable.” [Citation.] [¶] “An appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal e

2014DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review “ ‘An appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence in a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, is the same as the trial court’s: The appellate court reviews the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision; in that sense appellate judicial review under CEQA is de novo. [Citations.] We therefore resolve the substantive CEQA issues . . . by independently determining whether the administrative record demonstrates any legal error by the [agency] and whether it contains substantial evidence to support the [agency’

2016Adequacy of Project Description ‘“An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.” (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 396 ] (County of Inyo).) However, the “CEQA reporting process is not designed to freeze the ultimate proposal in the precise mold of the initial project; indeed, new and unforeseen insights may emerge during investigation, evoking revision of the original proposal. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 199.) “Under section 21166, subdivision (a), once an agency has prepared

2016Adequacy of Project Description ‘“An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.” (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 396 ] (County of Inyo).) However, the “CEQA reporting process is not designed to freeze the ultimate proposal in the precise mold of the initial project; indeed, new and unforeseen insights may emerge during investigation, evoking revision of the original proposal. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 199.) “Under section 21166, subdivision (a), once an agency has prepared

2020Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.” (§ 21168.5.) 34 “An appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence in a CEQA case . . . is the same as the trial court’s: The appellate court reviews the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision; in that sense appellate judicial review under CEQA is de novo.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 427 (Vine

2017Thus, the EIR “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” ’ ” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 231 , 864 P.2d 502 ] (Laurel Heights).) A. Standard of Review We review an agency’s compliance with CEQA to determine whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. (§ 21168.5; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 426 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821 , 150 P.3d 709 ] (Vineyard).) An agency abuses its discretion if it “ ‘has not proce

2017(California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 984 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 572 ].) “The agency is the finder of fact and we must indulge all reasonable inferences from the evidence that would support the agency’s determinations and resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the agency’s decision.” (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 117 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 326 ] (Save Our Peninsula).) Substantial evidence is “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argumen

2015Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.’ As a result of this standard, ‘The court does not pass upon the correctness of the EIR’s environmental conclusions, but only upon its sufficiency as an informative document.’ [Citation.]” (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 392, fn. omitted.) “An appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence in a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, is the same as the trial court’s: th

2017As we have already discussed, in reviewing an appeal from a writ proceeding under section 1094.5 in which no fundamental right is involved, ‘“[a]n appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence ... is the same as the [superior] court’s: The appellate court reviews the agency’s action, not the superior court’s decision; in that sense appellate judicial review . . . is de novo.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 427 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821 , 150 P.3d 709 ].) The superior court’s deter

2017As we have already discussed, in reviewing an appeal from a writ proceeding under section 1094.5 in which no fundamental right is involved, ‘“[a]n appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence ... is the same as the [superior] court’s: The appellate court reviews the agency’s action, not the superior court’s decision; in that sense appellate judicial review . . . is de novo.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 427 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821 , 150 P.3d 709 ].) The superior court’s deter

2017As we have already discussed, in reviewing an appeal from a writ proceeding under section 1094.5 in which no fundamental right is involved, ‘“[a]n appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence ... is the same as the [superior] court’s: The appellate court reviews the agency’s action, not the superior court’s decision; in that sense appellate judicial review . . . is de novo.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 427 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821 , 150 P.3d 709 ].) The superior court’s deter

2017As we have already discussed, in reviewing an appeal from a writ proceeding under section 1094.5 in which no fundamental right is involved, ‘“[a]n appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence ... is the same as the [superior] court’s: The appellate court reviews the agency’s action, not the superior court’s decision; in that sense appellate judicial review . . . is de novo.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 427 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821 , 150 P.3d 709 ].) The superior court’s deter

2016We therefore resolve the substantive CEQA issues . . . by independently determining whether the administrative record demonstrates any legal error by the Department and whether it contains substantial evidence to support the Department’s factual determinations.’ (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova [(2007)] 40 Cal.4th [412,] 426- 427, fns. omitted.)” (Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 214, 231-232 (Center for Biological Diversity, orig. brackets omitted.) II Distinction Between Program EIR and Project

2015We therefore resolve the substantive CEQA issues ... by independently determining whether the administrative record demonstrates any legal error by the Department and whether it contains substantial evidence to support the Department's factual determinations.' ( *664 Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova [ (2007) ] 40 Cal.4th [412,] 426-427, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821 , 150 P.3d 709 , fns. omitted.)" ( Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 214 , 231-232, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 736 ( Center for Biological Diversity , orig.

2026(CEQA Guidelines,4 § 15162, subd. (a)(1) & (2); Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596, 607 (Friends II).) “An appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence in a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, is the same as the trial court’s: The appellate court reviews the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision; in that sense appellate judicial review under CEQA is de novo.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412

2025(Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 427 ; see Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 214-215 (Newhall); Arcadians for Environmental Preservation v. City of Arcadia (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 418 , 428.) The agency abuses its discretion if it has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if its factual determinations or decision are not supported by substantial evidence.

2022Proc., § 1086 [for standing to seek writ of mandate, party must be “beneficially interested” in the litigation’s subject matter].) “An appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence in a CEQA case . . . is the same as the trial court’s: [We] review[] the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision; in that sense appellate judicial review under CEQA is de novo.’ [Citations.] We therefore resolve the substantive CEQA issues on which we granted review by independently determining whether the administrative record demonstrates any legal error by

2015DISCUSSION As noted, appellant contends the Compliance Offset Protocols and the early action offset provision of the Cap-and-Trade program regulation are invalid because they violate section 38562(d)(2), part of the 2006 Act, by failing to ensure that “each and every reduction that generates an offset will be in addition to ‘any’ greenhouse gas emission reduction ‘that otherwise would occur’.” A. Standard of Review “ ‘An appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence in . . . mandamus cases, is the same as the trial court’s: The appellate court r

2015DISCUSSION As noted, appellant contends the Compliance Offset Protocols and the early action offset provision of the Cap-and-Trade program regulation are invalid because they violate section 38562(d)(2), part of the 2006 Act, by failing to ensure that “each and every reduction that generates an offset will be in addition to ‘any’ greenhouse gas emission reduction ‘that otherwise would occur’.” A. Standard of Review “ ‘An appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence in . . . mandamus cases, is the same as the trial court’s: The appellate court r

2015DISCUSSION As noted, appellant contends the Compliance Offset Protocols and the early action offset provision of the Cap-and-Trade program regulation are invalid because they violate section 38562(d)(2), part of the 2006 Act, by failing to ensure that “each and every reduction that generates an offset will be in addition to ‘any’ greenhouse gas emission reduction ‘that otherwise would occur’.” A. Standard of Review “ ‘An appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence in . . . mandamus cases, is the same as the trial court’s: The appellate court r

2015DISCUSSION As noted, appellant contends the Compliance Offset Protocols and the early action offset provision of the Cap-and-Trade program regulation are invalid because they violate section 38562(d)(2), part of the 2006 Act, by failing to ensure that “each and every reduction that generates an offset will be in addition to ‘any’ greenhouse gas emission reduction ‘that otherwise would occur’.” A. Standard of Review “ ‘An appellate court’s review of the administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence in . . . mandamus cases, is the same as the trial court’s: The appellate court r

2015(Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Board of Equalization (2013) 57 Cal.4th 401, 415 [ 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 702 , 304 P.3d 188 ] (Western States).) As our Supreme Court has explained, “when an implementing regulation is challenged on the ground that it is ‘in conflict with the statute’ [citation] or does not ‘lay within the lawmaking authority delegated by the Legislature’ [citation], the issue of statutory construction is a question of law on which a court exercises independent judgment. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “In determining whether an agency has incorrectly interpreted the statute it purports to im

2015(Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Board of Equalization (2013) 57 Cal.4th 401, 415 [ 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 702 , 304 P.3d 188 ] (Western States).) As our Supreme Court has explained, “when an implementing regulation is challenged on the ground that it is ‘in conflict with the statute’ [citation] or does not ‘lay within the lawmaking authority delegated by the Legislature’ [citation], the issue of statutory construction is a question of law on which a court exercises independent judgment. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “In determining whether an agency has incorrectly interpreted the statute it purports to im

2015(Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Board of Equalization (2013) 57 Cal.4th 401, 415 [ 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 702 , 304 P.3d 188 ] (Western States).) As our Supreme Court has explained, “when an implementing regulation is challenged on the ground that it is ‘in conflict with the statute’ [citation] or does not ‘lay within the lawmaking authority delegated by the Legislature’ [citation], the issue of statutory construction is a question of law on which a court exercises independent judgment. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “In determining whether an agency has incorrectly interpreted the statute it purports to im

2015(Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Board of Equalization (2013) 57 Cal.4th 401, 415 [ 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 702 , 304 P.3d 188 ] (Western States).) As our Supreme Court has explained, “when an implementing regulation is challenged on the ground that it is ‘in conflict with the statute’ [citation] or does not ‘lay within the lawmaking authority delegated by the Legislature’ [citation], the issue of statutory construction is a question of law on which a court exercises independent judgment. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “In determining whether an agency has incorrectly interpreted the statute it purports to im

2014There is no practical difference between the standards of review applied under traditional or administrative mandamus.’ [Citation.]” (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 984 .) 23 “In reviewing an agency’s determination, finding or decision under CEQA, a court must determine whether the agency prejudicially abused its discretion. [Citation.] ‘Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.’ [Citation.]” (Laurel Heights Improv