Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 752·48 Cal. App. 4th 182·55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 625·96 Daily Journal DAR 9721·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5985
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 8, 1996F023638California9,310 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ardaiz, 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, 5,000-residen-tial-unit destination resort and residential community without an on-site water source, but deferred any analysis of significant environmental effects of supplying that water with the understanding that any such effects would be addressed in a later EIR to be prepared after the project was approved. In the published portion of this opinion, we hold that the tiering provisions of CEQA do not exempt a public agency from the Public Resources Code section 21100, subdivision (b)(1) requirement that an EIR shall include a detailed statement setting forth “[a]ll significant effects on the environment of the…

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.