Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ARDAIZ, P. J.
The “tiering” provisions (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21068.5, 21093, 21094—see fn. 5, post) of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq., or CEQA) enable a public agency to avoid, under some circumstances, having to undertake a repetitious analysis of significant environmental effects of a project when those effects have previously been addressed in an earlier environmental impact report (EIR). In the case before us a public agency approved an environmental impact report for a project calling for the creation of a 29,500-acre,…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Bozung v. Local Agency Formation CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho CordovaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
- In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated ProceedingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho CordovaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.