In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Ut pretium sapien id est sagittis id tincidunt tellus luctus. Praesent elementum egestas nulla quis porttitor. Proin aliquam purus nibh. Sed eu erat non neque rhoncus blandit. Duis vel tortor eros, nec ultricies turpis. Donec pharetra convallis velit sit amet vehicula. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Mauris at diam in urna porttitor sagittis sed non tellus. In interdum, nulla id porttitor facilisis, enim neque lobortis ante, id porttitor mauris velit eu mi. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Etiam quis lectus in nibh eleifend rutrum vel ac ipsum. Morbi mattis porttitor lorem rutrum ornare!

Nulla lorem orci, semper viverra laoreet a, volutpat eu lacus. Nam id consectetur justo. Etiam leo lectus massa nunc.

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 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 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 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 →

On July 8, 2011, the Third District Court of Appeal in Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin (2011) __Cal.App.4th__ upheld the ruling of the trial court on a challenge to an EIR for a residential development in favor of the City of Rocklin. This case addresses a number of CEQA claims brought by multiple plaintiffs. In important part, the court held the city was prohibited by state and federal law from revealing detailed information about cultural resources to the public to protect such resources from destruction, despite CEQA’s requirement to disclose information about cultural resources that would be impacted by a proposed project. The court also applied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 to find the city had appropriately analyzed water supplies for the project in the EIR. The court rejected appellants’ remaining claims related to the sufficiency of the EIR in addressing growth-inducement and impacts to oak trees, the California black rail, aesthetics, and traffic, as well as consistency with the general plan. Continue reading →

On July 7, 2011, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ordered the publication of Del Cerro Mobile Estates v. City of Placentia (2011) __Cal.App.4th__. The appellate court held estoppel did not prevent the City of Placentia from raising the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) railroad grade separation exemption for the first time after Del Cerro Mobile Estates had already filed an action challenging the City’s certified environmental impact report (EIR) for the project. The court also rejected Del Cerro’s waiver and statutory construction arguments related to the CEQA exemption. Finally, the court found Del Cerro’s challenge to the City’s adoption of resolutions related to the project was unripe. Continue reading →

On July 18, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill (AB) 2008, authored by Assemblyman Fuentes (D-Sylmar). The bill affects the expiration dates for tentative maps or vesting tentative maps approved by local agencies under the Subdivision Map Act. The Subdivision Map Act requires an approved tentative map or vesting tentative map to expire 24 months after its approval, or after an additional period of time prescribed by local ordinance, not to exceed 12 months. AB 2008 adds section 66452.23 to the Government Code in order to extend by 24 months the expiration date of any approved tentative map or vesting tentative map that has not expired as of the effective date of the act and will expire prior to January 1, 2014. A similar bill (AB 333) providing a 24-month extension to expiring maps was adopted in 2009. Continue reading →