29 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. Delaney v. Superior Court

    50 Cal.3d 785 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 338 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 205 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 165 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Allowing initiative to amend Napa's general plan despite failure to comply with procedures county planning agency must follow to enact amendment
  6. County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency

    76 Cal.App.4th 931 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 117 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 963 (Amador), the respondent water agency first adopted a resolution in December 1994 authorizing negotiations for purchasing a water project.
  7. Ca. Nat. Plant Soc. v. City of Rancho Cordova

    172 Cal.App.4th 603 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 87 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting as unreasonable interpretation of "coordination" to mean "consultation"
  8. Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange

    131 Cal.App.4th 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 79 times   4 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 103 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, the Court of Appeal rejected reliance on bad air quality for a region as a grounds for allowing further pollution.
  10. Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek

    52 Cal.3d 531 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 101 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Lesher, we held that this provision preempts any local zoning ordinance that is inconsistent with the general plan when enacted, and that an ordinance passed by initiative is no exception. (See Lesher, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 544, 277 Cal.Rptr. 1, 802 P.2d 317.) Any such inconsistent zoning ordinance "is invalid at the time it is passed."
  11. Section 15001 - Short Title

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15001   Cited 7 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 Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. 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

  12. Section 15050 - Lead Agency Concept

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15050   Cited 6 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

  13. Section 15121 - Informational Document

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15121   Cited 3 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

  14. Section 15086 - Consultation Concerning Draft EIR

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15086   Cited 2 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

  15. 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 Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21003,21061 and 21100, Public Resources Code. 1. Change without regulatory effect amendingNote filed 10-6-2005 pursuant to section 100, title 1,

  16. Section 15140 - Writing

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15140   Cited 1 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 Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21003 and 21100, Public Resources Code. 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

  17. Rule 8.204 - Contents and format of briefs

    Cal. R. 8.204   Cited 2,592 times

    (a) Contents (1) Each brief must: (A) Begin with a table of contents and a table of authorities separately listing cases, constitutions, statutes, court rules, and other authorities cited; (B) State each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority; and (C) Support any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears. If any part

  18. Rule 8.512 - Ordering review

    Cal. R. 8.512   Cited 356 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

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

    Cal. R. 8.264   Cited 223 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

  20. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 219 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