§Why CasetextPricing

SIERRA CLUB v. COUNTY OF FRESNO (FRIANT RANCH)

Real Party in Interest, Friant Ranch, L.P., Response to Amicus Curiae Brief of Association of Irritated Residents et al., Center for Biological Diversity, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, and North Coast Rivers Alliance

31 Cited authorities

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

    9 Cal.4th 559 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 584 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 402 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. Fukuda v. City of Angels

    20 Cal.4th 805 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 482 times
    In Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, our Supreme Court explained that in the "weight of the evidence" test applicable under "independent judgment review," there is "a strong presumption of correctness concerning the administrative findings" which "provides the trial court with a starting point for review-but it is only a presumption, and may be overcome.

  4. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California

    47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 620 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

  5. Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. Cty of Los Angeles

    11 Cal.3d 506 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 469 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Construing requirements of Gov. Code, § 65906 for zoning variances

  6. 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

  7. Sierra Club v. City of Orange

    163 Cal.App.4th 523 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 172 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Upholding EIR that briefly explained elimination of three possible alternatives

  8. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California

    6 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 248 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the decision to not recirculate an EIR where new studies released after public review "merely serve to amplify . . . the information found in the draft EIR" and "do not alter th[e] analysis in any way"

  9. E.P.I. Center v. C.F.F.P

    44 Cal.4th 459 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 137 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding no prejudice for omission of documents which were duplicative of information already contained in the EIR

  10. Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley

    60 Cal.4th 1086 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 112 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Remanding for reconsideration in light of clarified legal principles

  11. Section 15000 - Authority

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15000   Cited 557 times   13 Legal Analyses

    The regulations contained in this chapter are prescribed by the Secretary for Resources to be followed by all state and local agencies in California in the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. These Guidelines have been developed by the Office of Planning and Research for adoption by the Secretary for Resources in accordance with Section 2108-3. Additional information may be obtained by writing: SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES ROOM 1311, 1416 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 These