§Why CasetextPricing

BANNING RANCH CONSERVANCY v. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (NEWPORT BANNING RANCH)

Appellant, Banning Ranch Conservancy, Petition for Review

31 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. Delaney v. Superior Court

    50 Cal.3d 785 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 384 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the use of "all" in a constitutional provision precluded any exceptions

  4. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court

    19 Cal.4th 1036 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 255 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no constitutional impediment in permitting non-Californians a right of action under a domestic statute because California had a "clear and substantial interest in preventing fraudulent practices in this state," or in "extending state-created remedies to out-of-state parties harmed by wrongful conduct occurring in California."

  5. DeVita v. County of Napa

    9 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 200 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Describing Simpson as concluding that "the initiative and referendum power could not be used in areas in which the local legislative body's discretion was largely preempted by statutory mandate"

  6. California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova

    172 Cal.App.4th 603 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 120 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting as unreasonable interpretation of "coordination" to mean "consultation"

  7. 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"

  8. Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange

    131 Cal.App.4th 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 112 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding mitigation measure that requires construction to "meet 'exterior and interior noise standards' satisfactory to the manager of the county's building permit division insufficient" because "[n]o criteria or alternatives to be considered are set out. Rather, this mitigation measure does no more than require a report be prepared and followed, or allow approval by a county department without setting any standards."

  9. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford

    221 Cal.App.3d 692 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 126 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720, the court found that an EIR that focused on "the ratio between the project's impacts and the overall problem" did not adequately assess the project's cumulative impacts.

  10. Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek

    52 Cal.3d 531 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 123 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 65860, subd. preempts a zoning ordinance inconsistent with the general plan

  11. Section 21

    Cal. Const. art. VI § 21   Cited 2,918 times
    Providing in part: "On stipulation of the parties litigant the court may order a cause to be tried by a temporary judge"

  12. Section 15001 - Short Title

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15001   Cited 9 times

    These Guidelines may be cited as the "State CEQA Guidelines." Existing references to the "State EIR Guidelines" shall be construed to be references to the "State CEQA Guidelines." Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15001 1. New section filed 1-3-75; designated effective 4-1-75 (Register 75, No. 1). 2. Amendment filed 1-7-82; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 82, No. 2). 3. Amendment filed 7-13-83; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 83, No. 29). 4. Editorial correction of 7-13-83 order

  13. Section 15050 - Lead Agency Concept

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15050   Cited 7 times

    (a) Where a project is to be carried out or approved by more than one public agency, one public agency shall be responsible for preparing an EIR or negative declaration for the project. This agency shall be called the lead agency. (b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), the decisionmaking body of each responsible agency shall consider the lead agency's EIR or negative declaration prior to acting upon or approving the project. Each responsible agency shall certify that its decisionmaking body reviewed

  14. Section 13052 - Local Approvals Required

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 13052   Cited 6 times
    Setting forth minimum "preliminary approvals" before request for coastal development permit will be accepted for filing; list of requirements does not include ESHA designations

  15. Section 15121 - Informational Document

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15121   Cited 6 times

    (a) An EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decisionmakers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. The public agency shall consider the information in the EIR along with other information which may be presented to the agency. (b) While the information in the EIR does not control the agency's ultimate discretion on the project

  16. Section 15140 - Writing

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15140   Cited 3 times

    EIRs shall be written in plain language and may use appropriate graphics so that decisionmakers and the public can rapidly understand the documents. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15140 1. Repealer of Article 10 (Sections 15160-15167) and new Article 10 (Sections 15140-15153) filed 7-13-83; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 83, No. 29). For prior history, see Registers 80, No. 19; 78, No. 5; 76, No. 41; 75, No. 1; and 73, No. 50. 2. Editorial correction of 7-13-83 order redesignating effective

  17. Section 15086 - Consultation Concerning Draft EIR

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15086   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The lead agency shall consult with and request comments on the draft EIR from: (1) Responsible agencies, (2) Trustee agencies with resources affected by the project, and (3) Any other state, federal, and local agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project or which exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the project, including water agencies consulted pursuant to section 15083.5. (4) Any city or county which borders on a city or county within which the

  18. Section 15144 - Forecasting

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15144   Cited 2 times

    Drafting an EIR or preparing a negative declaration necessarily involves some degree of forecasting. While foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15144 1. Change without regulatory effect amending NOTE filed 10-6-2005 pursuant to section 100, title 1, California Code of Regulations (Register 2005, No. 40). Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference:

  19. Rule 8.512 - Ordering review

    Cal. R. 8.512   Cited 3,561 times

    (a) Transmittal of record On receiving a copy of a petition for review or on request of the Supreme Court, whichever is earlier, the clerk/executive officer of the Court of Appeal must promptly send the record to the Supreme Court. If the petition is denied, the clerk/executive officer of the Supreme Court must promptly return the record to the Court of Appeal if the record was transmitted in paper form. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2018; previously amended effective January 1, 2016.) (b)Determination

  20. Rule 8.264 - Filing, finality, and modification of decision

    Cal. R. 8.264   Cited 509 times

    (a)Filing the decision (1) The clerk/executive officer of the Court of Appeal must promptly file all opinions and orders of the court and promptly send copies showing the filing date to the parties and, when relevant, to the lower court or tribunal. (2) A decision by opinion must identify the participating justices, including the author of the majority opinion and of any concurring or dissenting opinion, or the justices participating in a "by the court" opinion. (Subd (a) amended effective January

  21. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer

  22. Rule 8.212 - Service and filing of briefs

    Cal. R. 8.212   Cited 28 times

    (a)Time to file (1) An appellant must serve and file its opening brief within: (A) 40 days after the record-or the reporter's transcript, after a rule 8.124 election-is filed in the reviewing court; or (B) 70 days after the filing of a rule 8.124 election, if the appeal proceeds without a reporter's transcript. (2) A respondent must serve and file its brief within 30 days after the appellant files its opening brief. (3) An appellant must serve and file its reply brief, if any, within 20 days after