§Why CasetextPricing

SIERRA CLUB v. COUNTY OF FRESNO (FRIANT RANCH)

Real Party in Interest, Friant Ranch, L.P., Supplemental Brief

12 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. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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’ ”

  7. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Cal. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife

    62 Cal.4th 204 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 69 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the potential value of " ‘performance based standards' " as outlined in the Scoping Plan or other authoritative body of regulation

  8. Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach

    2 Cal.5th 918 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 43 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Banning Ranch

  9. Foundation v. San Diego Ass'n of Gov'ts

    3 Cal.5th 497 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 36 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Concluding the agency "did not abuse its discretion by declining to explicitly engage in an analysis of the consistency of projected 2050 greenhouse gas emissions with the goals in the executive order" where "[t]he EIR sufficiently informed the public, based on the information available at the time, about the regional plan's greenhouse gas impacts and its potential inconsistency with state climate change goals"

  10. Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v. San Diego Ass'n of Governments

    17 Cal.App.5th 413 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding range of alternatives was unreasonable when the purpose of a plan was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the EIR included no alternative designed to reduce driving, the primary source of emissions

  11. Section 15126.2 - Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15126.2   Cited 6 times

    (a) The Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project. An EIR shall identify and focus on the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment. In assessing the impact of a proposed project on the environment, the lead agency should normally limit its examination to changes in the existing physical conditions in the affected area as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or where no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis

  12. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,146 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or