§Why CasetextPricing

SIERRA CLUB v. COUNTY OF FRESNO (FRIANT RANCH)

Amicus Curiae Brief of California Association of Environmental Professionals and American Planning Association California Chapter

13 Cited authorities

  1. Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (Air Resources Board)

    9 Cal.4th 559 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 585 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it would be improper to take judicial notice of evidence that was both absent from the administrative record and not before the agency at the time of its decision because such evidence is not relevant

  2. Cit. for Resp. Growth v. City

    40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 403 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 621 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. Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry (Pacific Lumber Co.)

    7 Cal.4th 1215 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 151 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "the [California Board of Forestry] has the ultimate power of approval over a [THP]"

  6. Eureka Citizens v. City of Eureka

    147 Cal.App.4th 357 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 81 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Upholding EIR's “ ‘qualitative judgment’ ” that playground would not have significant aesthetic impact

  7. Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners

    91 Cal.App.4th 1344 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 89 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Concluding the “potential noise impact of increased nighttime flights mandate [d] further study”

  8. San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus

    27 Cal.App.4th 713 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 106 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In San Joaquin Raptor, the development consisted of 633 single-family homes, a commercial area, a park, and a district office building and meeting hall, to be located on 154.24 acres north of an unincorporated community in Stanislaus County.

  9. Save Cuyama Valley v. Cnty. of Santa Barbara

    213 Cal.App.4th 1059 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 25 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Ongoing monitoring at gravel mine for signs of river erosion

  10. National P. Cons. Assn. v. County of Riverside

    71 Cal.App.4th 1341 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 36 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Upholding agency's choice to use residential noise standards in parkland