6 Cited authorities

  1. Laurel Hts. Impro. v. Regents of U. of C

    6 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 195 times   12 Legal Analyses
    In Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at page 395, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278, we considered whether there are circumstances under which an EIR must address “future action related to” a proposed project.
  2. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

    13 Cal.3d 68 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 240 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In NoOil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66] (No Oil, Inc.), discussing whether the proper scope of an EIR included possible related future actions, we quoted this observation from a federal decision: "`Statements must be written late enough in the development process to contain meaningful information, but they must be written early enough so that whatever information is contained can practically serve as an input into the decision making process.'"
  3. Cal. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.

    62 Cal.4th 369 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 46 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Building Industry
  4. Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma

    6 Cal.App.4th 1307 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 81 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Involving a tiered EIR
  5. Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre

    25 Cal.4th 165 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 47 times   5 Legal Analyses
    In Sierra Madre, our Supreme Court held that the City Council of Sierra Madre could not avoid CEQA review of its decision to remove certain structures from historic preservation status simply by submitting an ordinance to the voters proposing such an action.
  6. Benton v. Board of Supervisors

    226 Cal.App.3d 1467 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 41 times   6 Legal Analyses
    In Benton, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d 1467, 277 Cal.Rptr. 481, for example, the Court of Appeal considered whether a proposal to relocate a winery that had previously been approved via negative declaration required the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Benton held that, under CEQA Guidelines section 15162, the question whether a subsequent or supplemental EIR was required depended on the effect of the proposed relocation; the changes were not an occasion to reopen the original environmental review of the winery project.