Six Published CEQA Cases
Affect Legal Landscape for Businesses and Public Agencies
The published CEQA cases of Summer of 2006 address master plans
from both California State University and a community college district,
the City of Monterey's approval of a water credit transfer, a mixed-use
development in the City of Placerville, a Lowe's warehouse and garden
center, and the successful approval of a Wal-Mart. The opinions
discuss a range of legal issues, including the feasibility of mitigation
for project impacts through the payment of fees, the substantial
evidence necessary to support a categorical exemption, the trigger
for identifying a new “project,” tiering, urban decay analysis,
and alternatives.
City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California
State University
On July 31, 2006, the California Supreme Court vacated California
State University's (CSU) certification of an EIR and approval of
a Campus Master Plan for the development of Fort Ord. In City
of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University,
2006 Cal. LEXIS 9286, the Court found CSU abused its discretion
in concluding the mitigation necessary to reduce the impacts to
a less-than-significant level was not feasible and was not within
CSU's control. Specifically, the Court held that although the California
Constitution prohibits another public agency from imposing a special
assessment on CSU without legislative authority, and although the
payment of fees for a non-public purpose constitutes an improper
gift of public funds, CSU could voluntarily make such payments to
mitigate for the Campus Master Plan's impacts. As a result, CSU
abused its discretion by concluding the payment of fees was not
feasible and by relying upon statements of overriding consideration.
County of San Diego v. Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community
College District
Three weeks prior to the California Supreme Court's decision
in City of Marina, on July 7, 2006 the Court of Appeal
vacated the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District's (District)
certification of an EIR and approval of a master plan. County
of San Diego v. Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District,
141 Cal. App. 4th 86 (2006). For the same reasons the California
Supreme Court rejected the lead agency's arguments in City of
Marina, the Court of Appeal rejected the District's arguments
that: (1) another public agency (the County) had exclusive jurisdiction
over the necessary mitigation (off-site road improvements) to reduce
the master plan's impacts to a less-than-significant level; and
(2) the District was legally prohibited from paying fees to mitigate
for off-site transportation impacts.
Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District
In Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula
Water Management District, 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1124, the Court
found the City of Monterey (Monterey) abused its discretion in relying
upon the “existing structures” categorical exemption in approving
the transfer of a water credit. A developer asked to transfer credits
for water use associated with an existing commercial development
to Monterey, with the intention Monterey would eventually return
the credit to the developer when the developer had final plans to
replace the existing commercial development with a new one. The
Court found Monterey did not have substantial evidence the water
credit transfer would merely facilitate the replacement of existing
structures because the developer had not submitted an application
with specific design plans for the replacement structure.
The Court also invalidated the Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District's (Water District) approval of the transfer as responsible
agency. The Court found the Water District did not have substantial
evidence to rely upon Monterey's categorical exemption once the
Court found Monterey's reliance upon the exemption to be an abuse
of discretion. In addition, the Court found the Water District's
claim it adequately considered cumulative impacts was unsupported
by substantial evidence where Water District staff specifically
stated the district “did not look at similar properties.”
Save Our Neighborhood et al. v. Lishman
At issue in Save Our Neighborhood et al. v. Lishman,
140 Cal. App. 4th 1288 (2006), was the City of Placerville's (Placerville)
reliance upon an addendum to approve the “Gateway Project,” which
included a hotel, gas station, convenience store, carwash, and parking
areas. Relying upon a mitigated negative declaration, Placerville
had previously approved a similar development (the “Northgate Project”)
that had never been constructed. Although the two developments included
many of the same characteristics and would be located on the same
site, they had different proponents. Moreover, the Court found there
was no evidence the latter development utilized any of the drawings
or other materials connected with the earlier development. As a
result, the Court concluded the two developments constituted different
“projects” under CEQA, and, as a result, Placerville's reliance
upon an addendum was not supported by substantial evidence.
Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of
Gilroy
In a victory for Wal-Mart and for jurisdictions approving Wal-Marts,
the Court in Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City
of Gilroy, 140 Cal. App. 4th 911 (2006), upheld the City of
Gilroy's (Gilroy) certification of an EIR and approval of a Wal-Mart.
In doing so, the Court found Gilroy appropriately tiered off a 1993
EIR for the annexation of the area in which the Wal-Mart was to
be located, and off a 2001 mitigated negative declaration for a
retail center that also included the project site. The Court also
found the Wal-Mart to be consistent with the 2002-2020 General Plan
for which an EIR had been prepared and certified. Specifically,
the Court found these previous environmental documents, along with
the EIR for the Wal-Mart itself, adequately considered that approval
of a Wal-Mart would contribute to the shift of business from Gilroy's
Central Business District, and the resulting physical effects of
these economic changes.
Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose
The Court in Preservation Action Council v. City of San
Jose, 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1208, required the City of San Jose
(San Jose) to rescind its certification of an EIR and approval of
the demolition of “Building 025” and construction of a Lowe's store.
Building 025 was considered a significant historic resource as it
was the site of the invention of the “flying head” disk drive. San
Jose considered but rejected reduced-size alternatives that would
avoid the demolition of Building 025. The Court held the EIR's ambiguity
regarding whether the square footage of the reduced-size alternative
referred to the size of the entire store or only to the sales floor
made it impossible for the public to evaluate the validity of the
claim by Lowe's that the alternative would produce a competitive
disadvantage. In addition, San Jose failed to make findings regarding
the infeasibility of all the rejected alternatives and, moreover,
the Court concluded such findings would have been unsupported by
substantial evidence where there was no independent analysis of
the validity of Lowe's claim the reduced-size alternative was infeasible.
