ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF SAC. v. City of Sacramento

Good Law
142 Cal. App. 4th 1018·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1361·2006 Daily Journal DAR 12175·48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 544·36 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20192
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 9, 2006C049527California9,574 words

Opinion

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 Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) are complied with. Our task as a reviewing court, therefore, is not to determine whether the hawks and snakes of the Natomas Basin merit protection or whether they will fare better on the upgraded preserves guaranteed by the 2003 habitat conservation plan and the implementation agreement than they would if left alone. Rather, in the final analysis, the question we must resolve is whether public agencies met their responsibilities under the two acts and whether there is substantial evidence to support their findings.

State and federal…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.