On July 27, 2010, Mendocino County approved the Kunzler Terrace Mine Project, a 65.3 acre sand and gravel quarry one mile north of Ukiah. Project opponents sued, alleging various CEQA violations. The First District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the challengers and published the portion of the decision addressing impacts to agricultural lands.
Court Finds the Mutual Desire to Comply with CEQA does not Create a Common Interest Between Lead Agencies and Developers
In Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court of Stanislaus County, petitioners sought writ relief from the trial court’s order excluding hundreds of documents from the administrative record based upon the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine asserted by the city and the project applicants/developers. The Court of Appeal, Fifth District, ordered the trial court to…
Superior Court Awards Over $600,000 in Costs to Agency for Preparing an Administrative Record
In June 2012, petitioners, three local government agencies (Counties of Butte and Plumas, and Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District), appealed a decision by the Yolo County Superior Court in County of Butte et al. v. Department of Water Resources et al. (2012, No. CV09-1258). The Superior Court had denied their petitions for…
Actions by a City, Including Granting of a Loan, Did Not Commit the City to a Project prior to Approval in Violation of Save Tara
In Neighbors for Fair Planning v. City and County of San Francisco, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 506, the Court of Appeal, First District, affirmed a trial court’s decision denying a petition for writ of mandate to set aside defendant’s EIR certification and approval of a project involving a community center and affordable housing.
Real party…
Supreme Court Holds Monetary Exactions Must Have a Nexus and be Roughly Proportional to Impacts of a Proposed Development
For nearly two decades, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987),and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), have provided the standard for evaluating the legality of development permit conditions requiring the dedication of interests in real property. Nollan required local governments to show a…
Court Rejects CEQA and Williamson Act Challenges to a San Benito Solar Power Project
In Save Panoche Valley v. San Benito County, the Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District affirmed a ruling denying a petition for a writ of mandate alleging violations of CEQA in San Benito County’s (County) approval of a solar power project and related cancellation of Williamson Act contracts. This decision follows on the…
Court Holds California Constitution Prohibits Cuts in Line on the CEQA Litigation Carousel
On June 3, 2013, a superior court judge in Alameda County entered a final order and judgment striking down AB 900 as unconstitutional and enjoined the State Controller from funding activities related to its implementation. AB 900 (codified at Pub. Res. Code § 21185(a)) was enacted in 2011 to streamline suits challenging the adequacy of…
CEQA Document Adoption is a Distinct “Item of Business” to be Listed on Agency Meeting Agenda
The Merced County Planning Commission (the Commission) posted an agenda for an upcoming meeting that set forth, as one item of business, the Commission’s potential approval of a subdivision application to divide 380.45 acres into nine parcels (the project). The agenda failed to mention that the Commission would also be considering whether to adopt a…
Court Turns Tide in Favor of Desalination Plant – Holds Ample Substantial Evidence Supports the Project’s EIR
Almost four years after the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) certified an environmental impact report (EIR) and approved a five million gallon a day desalination plant project, the Court of Appeal, First District, in a published opinion (N. Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Mun. Water Dist. Bd. of Dirs. (2013) 2013 Cal.App.LEXIS 401), reversed…
Is a future baseline the baseline of the future? Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority
In Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 552 (Smart Rail), the Second Appellate District upheld the lead agency’s determination that a future 2030 baseline was proper for determining the significance of traffic and air quality impacts caused by a proposed light rail project in Los Angeles. In doing…