The Court of Appeal held that an EIR for a general plan amendment must analyze the project’s impacts on the existing environment, rather than simply compare the project’s impacts to the eventual impacts that could occur in the future through build out under existing specific plan or general plan designations. [RMM Counsel of record: Michael H. Remy and Tina A. Thomas]
The Court of Appeal upheld the use of a mitigated negative declaration for a seven-acre strip mine. The court concluded that the neighbors’ testimony regarding noise, dust, and traffic did not constitute substantial evidence requiring preparation of an EIR. [RMM Counsel of record: Michael H. Remy and Tina A. Thomas]
The Court of Appeal rejected a harmless error standard under CEQA. The court also held that the respondent city had failed to adequately respond to agencies’ comments on the EIR for a proposed development project. Finally, the court held that the city’s administrative findings were too ambiguous to apprise interested parties and a reviewing court of the basis for the city’s administrative action. [RMM Counsel of record: Michael H. Remy and Tina A. Thomas]
The Court of Appeal required Sutter County to recirculate an EIR when significant new information became available regarding the potential of a proposed tomato processing facility to cause environmental impacts. [RMM Counsel of record: Michael H. Remy and Tina A. Thomas]
Schenck v. County of Sonoma (Aug. 26, 2011) __Cal.App.4th__ (Case No. A129646) involves an appeal from a challenge to the County of Sonoma’s adoption of a mitigated negative declaration (MND) for a beverage distribution facility. The trial court held the County failed to furnish proper notice of its intent to adopt the MND to the Bay Area Air Quality Control District (BAAQCD). The trial court did not find any other violations of CEQA, including with respect to the County’s adoption of an MND, rather than an environmental impact report (EIR), for the project. Following the County’s filing of a return to the writ and the trial court’s entry of final judgment, petitioner appealed, arguing the County violated CEQA’s notice requirements and that an EIR should have been prepared for the project. The Court of Appeal rejected petitioner’s claims. Continue reading
On August 5, 2011, the Sixth District Court of Appeal in Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill (2011) __Cal.App.4th__, affirmed a judgment denying the property owner’s challenge to a city ordinance restricting residential development. The appellate court held the ordinance was valid because the city had conceivable rational reasons for the restriction, even if the ordinance only applied to one property within the city’s urban service area. Therefore, the city had not violated the developer’s right to equal protection and had not engaged in discriminatory spot zoning. Continue reading
On June 30, 2011, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in South Orange County Wastewater Authority v. City of Dana Point (2011) __Cal.App.4th__, affirmed a decision denying a petition for writ of mandate under CEQA. The court found that the City of Dana Point (City) had properly adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was not required in order to address the impact of odor from an existing sewage treatment plant on residents of future developments. The court concluded that the CEQA objections were precluded by the legislative intent and statutory language of CEQA because the petition sought to challenge the project on the basis of preexisting environmental conditions and not the project’s adverse effects on the environment. Continue reading
On August 2, 2011, in Edna Valley Watch v. County of San Luis Obispo (2011) ___Cal.App.4th___ (Case No. B223653), the Sixth District Court of Appeal overturned a trial court’s ruling that a petitioner is not entitled to attorneys’ fees for work performed in an administrative hearing. The Court of Appeal also overturned the trial court’s determination that a petitioner may be disqualified from receiving fees based on his personal stake in the litigation. The court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings to determine the amount of fees that should be awarded consistent with the court’s opinion. Continue reading
On July 26, 2011, the Second District Court of Appeal ordered the publication of Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. City of Santa Clarita (2011) __Cal.App.4th__. The appellate court affirmed the denial of a petition for writ of mandate that challenged the City of Santa Clarita’s approval of a Master Plan and a development agreement to allow the expansion of hospital and medical office building facilities. The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the city’s conclusion regarding the infeasibility of completely mitigating the project’s impact on climate change was not supported by substantial evidence. The court also found the city could properly engage in a balancing of the project’s perceived benefits against its adverse impacts on neighboring residents. Continue reading