9 Cited authorities

  1. Cit. for Resp. Growth v. City

    40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 301 times   15 Legal Analyses
    In Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pages 439–442, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821, 150 P.3d 709, the Final EIR provided conflicting figures concerning both expected water supply and expected water demand, and gave estimates contrary to a related environmental report.
  2. Laurel Heights Improv. v. Regents of Univ. of Calif

    47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 462 times   17 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
  3. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors

    52 Cal.3d 553 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 226 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Requiring range of alternatives that offer substantial environmental advantages and are feasible
  4. Laurel Hts. Impro. v. Regents of U. of C

    6 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 193 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.
  5. In re Bay-Delta

    43 Cal.4th 1143 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 107 times   10 Legal Analyses
    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))
  6. Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry

    7 Cal.4th 1215 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 130 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "the [California Board of Forestry] has the ultimate power of approval over a [THP]"
  7. Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo

    157 Cal.App.4th 1437 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 41 times
    In Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437 (Save Round Valley),the Court of Appeal held an EIR for a subdivision of single-family residences was not deficient in failing to consider the possibility that the future lot owners might build a second dwelling on their lot pursuant to a local ordinance allowing such dwellings, because the possibility was remote and speculative.
  8. Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange

    118 Cal.App.3d 818 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818 [ 173 Cal.Rptr. 602], the EIR for a proposed mining project stated that the mine would consume 12,000 to 15,000 gallons of water daily and that the local water district would supply it, but provided no information as to the impacts on water service elsewhere of supplying that amount of water to the mine.
  9. Ebbetts v. Cal. Dept. of Forestry

    183 P.3d 1210 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. S143689. May 22, 2008. Appeal from the Superior Court of Tuolumne County, No. CV48910, William G. Polley, Judge. Michael W. Graf; Law Offices of Thomas N. Lippe and Thomas N. Lippe for Plaintiffs and Appellants. MacKenzie Albritton and James A. Heard for Sierra Club and Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants. Law Offices of J. William Yeates, J. William Yeates, Keith G. Wagner and Jason R. Flanders for California Native Plant Society as