§Why CasetextPricing

SIERRA CLUB v. COUNTY OF FRESNO (FRIANT RANCH)

Real Party in Interest, Friant Ranch, L.P., Response to Amicus Curiae Brief of South Coast Air Quality Management District

13 Cited authorities

  1. Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization

    19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 640 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “administrative interpretation ... will be accorded great respect by the courts and will be followed it not clearly erroneous”

  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. 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

  5. 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"

  6. Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors

    87 Cal.App.4th 99 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 195 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Upholding EIR calling for developer payments to government fund as mitigation measure for traffic impacts

  7. Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley

    60 Cal.4th 1086 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 113 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Remanding for reconsideration in light of clarified legal principles

  8. Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority

    57 Cal.4th 439 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 108 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[w]hile an agency has the discretion under some circumstances to omit environmental analysis of impacts on existing conditions and instead use only a baseline of projected future conditions, existing conditions ‘will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant’ ”

  9. County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency

    76 Cal.App.4th 931 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 148 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding inadequate an EIR that only superficially described the existing condition of several lakes that would be impacted by a project; the EIR's discussion, which focused only on lake levels, undermined the agency's ability "to assess the impacts of the proposed project"

  10. California Oak Foundation v. Regents of University of California

    188 Cal.App.4th 227 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 86 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Upholding an award of $51,442.63 in costs for preparing a 40,000 page administrative record

  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