Legal Opinion
ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF SAC. v. City of Sacramento
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 9, 2006No. C049527PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RAYE, J.
California and federal law provide protection for fish, plant, and wildlife species that are threatened with extinction, and for their habitats. Habitat protections inevitably impact land use decisions and must be considered in evaluating the environmental impact of proposed development. However, protections accorded species like the Swainson’s hawk and the giant garter snake are not absolute. Development may proceed notwithstanding adverse impacts on endangered populations so long as the California Endangered Species Act (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.) and the California…
2Cases cited20 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
- Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Sacramento Old City Ass'n v. City Council of SacramentoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of WoodsideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of NevadaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Building Industry Ass'n v. County of StanislausCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Masonite Corp. v. County of MendocinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.