Legal Digest
Local CEQA Appeals Not Exempt From Filing Fees
Submitted by jstephens on 9 March 2010 - 4:49pmUpholding a 27-year-old California Supreme Court determination, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled that local agencies may impose a fee for the filing of an administrative appeal of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) decision.
First District Upholds CEQA Distinction Between ‘Agreement’ and ‘Project’
Submitted by jstephens on 9 March 2010 - 10:52amIn yet another California Environmental Quality Act case involving whether an agreement between a tribe and a city constitutes a “project,” the First District Court of Appeal has held that the law did not apply to an agreement requiring a city’s formal support of a proposed casino in exchange for the tribe’s funding of undefined city services and improvements.
Cal Supremes Give Plaintiffs 30 Days To Sue
Submitted by Paul Shigley on 25 February 2010 - 10:35amThe filing of a notice of determination triggers a 30-day statute of limitations for all California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) challenges to any decision announced in the notice, regardless of the nature of the alleged CEQA violation, the state Supreme Court has ruled.
In a decision filed on February 11, 2010, in Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, the unanimous Supreme Court reversed the Sixth District Court of Appeal, which had ruled that a 180-day statute of limitations applied in the case.
Can't Ignore Old Mitigation Measures, Court Rules
Submitted by Paul Shigley on 25 February 2010 - 10:22amThe shelf life of mitigation measures may readily outlast the lives of the projects to which the mitigations are attached, according to the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District.
While the fact pattern in the case at hand was specific to timber harvesting and the conversion of property, the court’s holding has application in the broader world of all California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reviews.
Low Threshold For 'Fair Argument' Reaffirmed
Submitted by Paul Shigley on 9 February 2010 - 12:13pmA coalition of plastic bag producers avoided, at least for the moment, a major blow to business by using the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to delay implementation of an ordinance banning the distribution of plastic bags in the City of Manhattan Beach.
L.A. School District Wins Pass-Through Payment Dispute
Submitted by Paul Shigley on 9 February 2010 - 11:38amCounties and cities must let go of another share of property tax revenues to school districts under the redevelopment law’s distribution of the property tax increment.
Tiburon Loses Prop. 218 Assessment Challenge
Submitted by Paul Shigley on 26 January 2010 - 3:10pmThe Town of Tiburon has lost another round in its ongoing litigation with property owners over assessments to fund the undergrounding of utility lines.
Developers' Challenge To L.A. Design Guidelines Fails
Submitted by Paul Shigley on 26 January 2010 - 3:05pmA state appellate court has upheld the adoption of design guidelines that are intended to implement a City of Los Angeles redevelopment plan.
No Need To Study Rejected Project, Court Holds
Submitted by Paul Shigley on 11 January 2010 - 12:20pmTo the relief of many public agencies, the state Supreme Court has overturned an appellate court decision that could have increased the number of “projects” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
In a 7-0 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that Sacramento County was not required to complete an environmental review before denying a conditional use permit renewal for a private airport. Project denials are specifically exempted from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the court ruled.
Put Hearing Request In Writing, Court Insists
Submitted by Paul Shigley on 11 January 2010 - 11:57amClaims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit.
The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law “plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court.”