In a partially-published opinion, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the Merced County Planning Commission’s failure to mention in its posted agenda that it was considering adoption of a mitigated negative declaration (MND) in connection with a minor subdivision approval violated the Brown Act. (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced, et al. (5th Dist. 5/31/13) 216 Cal.App.4th 1167. Key points of the published portion of the opinion include:
Continue Reading CEQA Determination Is Item of Business That Must Be Agendized Under Brown Act, Fifth District Holds
Uncategorized
CEQA Roundup: Supreme Court Grants and Holds in City of Hayward; Lengthy Answer Brief Submitted In Berkeley Hillside Preservation; Senator Steinberg Aims for 2013 Reform
By Arthur F. Coon on
As Halloween approaches, there is a “mixed bag” of CEQA developments to briefly note:
- Just a week after extending its time to act on the City of Hayward’s petition for review of the First Appellate District’s (Div. 3) decision in City of Hayward v. Trustees of the California State University, (Case No. S203939) (“City of Hayward”) the California Supreme Court, on October 17, 2012, granted the petition and held the case (Case No. S203939), deferring further action pending its consideration and disposition of a related issue in City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, Case No. S199557. The City of Hayward case, which is now unciteable as precedent due to the grant of review, was summarized in my blog post of July 12, 2012 (“First District Reaffirms CEQA Is Concerned With Physical Impacts on the Environment, Not Economic Ones on Government Services”). The Supreme Court’s docket identified the relevant issue under consideration in City of San Diego as: “Does a state agency that may have an obligation to make “fair-share” payments for the mitigation of off-site impacts of a proposed project satisfy its duty to mitigate under [CEQA] by stating that it has sought funding from the legislature to pay for such mitigation and that, if the requested funds are not appropriated, it may proceed with the project on the ground that mitigation is infeasible?”
CEQA Baseline Decisions In Conflict After Second District’s Neighbors for Smart Rail Decision
By Sean R. Marciniak on
In a series of decisions that had agency planners and environmental consultants scratching their heads, various courts of appeal last year held that every CEQA document must take account of existing conditions in assessing environmental impacts. (See Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Assoc. v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (6th Dist. 2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1351; Pfeiffer v.
First District Holds CEQA Baseline For Chevron Marine Terminal Lease Renewal Includes Existing Conditions and Structures, Finds No CEQA or Public Trust Violation In Lands Commission’s Alternatives Analysis
By Arthur F. Coon on
The CEQA “baseline” rules have received a lot of judicial attention in the last several years, and rightly so. The baseline or “environmental setting,” is the fundamental “benchmark” from which a project’s environmental impacts are measured. The baseline also determines the scope of the “reasonable range of [project] alternatives” required to be considered in an EIR, since “alternatives shall be limited to ones that avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15126.6(f), emph. added.) By definition, adverse environmental conditions already existing as part of the baseline are not significant impacts of the proposed project.
Continue Reading First District Holds CEQA Baseline For Chevron Marine Terminal Lease Renewal Includes Existing Conditions and Structures, Finds No CEQA or Public Trust Violation In Lands Commission’s Alternatives Analysis