Throughout its history, the firm has been involved in major environmental cases, including the following examples of published California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions:
Sustainable Transportation Advocates of Santa Barbara v. Santa Barbara County Association of Governments
(2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 113
The Second District Court of Appeal upheld the Santa Barbara Association of Governments (SBCAG) approval of a transportation sales tax measure without conducting CEQA review. SBCAG developed and approved its sales tax measure pursuant to its authority under the Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act. The Act requires that an agency approving a transportation sales tax measure receive a supermajority approval of the County voters before implementing the measures, and requires that the agency develop a funding plan listing projects anticipated to receive funding under the measure. The decision confirmed that neither of these requirements turns a funding mechanism into a project subject to CEQA. The Court explains that a funding plan “does not qualify as a project within the meaning of CEQA . . . [if] it is a mechanism for funding proposed projects that may be modified or not implemented depending on a number of factors, including CEQA environmental review.” The Court also explains that a ballot measure that does not meet the definition of a project, such as funding mechanism established consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15378, subdivision (b)(4), does not require prior CEQA review merely because an agency must put the measure before the voters.
Importantly, the court considered the implications of the California Supreme Court’s analysis in Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116 (Save Tara) to reach its holding. The court concluded that the analysis in Save Tara is applicable not only to agency agreements relating to private development, as was the case in Save Tara, but also to public projects that do not involve agreements with private entities. The court, therefore, conducted the fact-specific inquiry required by Save Tara in considering whether SBCAG’s actions constituted a “project approval” under CEQA. The court held that it did not, and explained that an agency’s esteem for projects that may be funded by a government funding mechanism is not, in and of itself, the equivalent of a commitment to fund any particular project. [RTMM Counsel of record: Whitman F. Manley, Tiffany K. Wright, and Christopher J. Butcher.]
California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz
(2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957
The Sixth District Court of Appeal upheld the City of Santa Cruz’s approval of a master plan for Arana Gulch, a City-owned greenbelt property. The EIR for the master plan acknowledged that the project would have a significant effect on the habitat of the Santa Cruz tarplant due to the chosen alignment of a multiuse trail; however, the City determined that overriding considerations, including making the trail accessible for wheelchair users, warranted approval of the project as proposed. The court confirmed that the permissible considerations for a finding of infeasibility include whether an alternative is impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint. Citing City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, the court concluded that the City was legally justified in rejecting environmentally superior alternatives as “infeasible” on the basis of its determination that the alternatives were undesirable from a policy standpoint because they failed to achieve what the City Council regarded as primary objectives of the project, and because substantial evidence supported this finding. Further, the court addressed the applicable standard of review for challenges to the adequacy of an EIR’s alternatives analysis, holding that the relevant question is whether CEQA’s informational requirements have been met. If they have been met, then a dispute over whether the type or amount of information provided is adequate is a factual determination subject to the “substantial evidence” prong of Public Resources Code section 21168.5, rather than a question of whether the agency failed to proceed in the manner required by law. [RTMM Counsel of record: James G. Moose and Amy R. Higuera.]
California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova
(2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603
The Third Appellate District Court of Appeal held that the City of Rancho Cordova approved a project that was inconsistent with one mandatory policy of its General Plan concerning wetland mitigation. Specifically, the Court ruled that before the City approved a project that would impact on-site wetlands, its General Plan policy required the City to “coordinate” wetland preservation and mitigation with the federal agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands and wetland-dependent special-status species. The Court held that the term “coordinate” as used in the City’s General Plan policy implied a higher level of effort was required on the part of the City, beyond merely “consulting” with the other agencies, as under the CEQA process. Addressing the CEQA claims, the Court upheld the project EIR in its entirety, reversing the trial court’s determinations that the wetland mitigation measures improperly deferred mitigation. The court rejected the notion that an adequate wetlands mitigation measure relying on a “no net loss” performance standard had to identify specific off-site mitigation areas. The court also reversed the lower court’s ruling that the City’s findings concerning the adequacy of mitigation were not supported by substantial evidence. In so doing, the court repeatedly emphasized the requirement for petitioners to cite to evidence in the record that is favorable to the agency, not just supportive of their own arguments. The court also rejected a number of other claims raised by the California Native Plant Society because they were not properly exhausted at the administrative level. [RTMM Counsel of record: James G. Moose, Sabrina V. Teller and Jason W. Holder.]
California Native Plant Society v. County of El Dorado
(2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1026
The Court of Appeal held that the payment of a rare plant impact fee did not presumptively establish full mitigation for the potential impacts of a senior assisted living and Alzheimers’ care unit project in El Dorado County. The project was approved with a mitigated negative declaration, which relied on the payment of the plant impact fee as mitigation for impacts to two endangered plant species with confirmed populations on the project site. The court ruled that although a comprehensive preservation program funded by impact fees may be a sound strategy for addressing such impacts, the absence of any environmental review for the adoption of the fee program meant that reviews of individual projects triggering the fee could not presumptively assume that payment of the fee constitutes full mitigation for the potential impact. The court also found fault with the County’s failure to update the fee program as required. [RTMM Counsel of record: Andrea K. Leisy and Laura M. Harris.]
St. Vincent’s School for Boys, Catholic Charities CYO v. City of San Rafael
(2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 989
The Court of Appeal upheld San Rafael’s general plan against a challenge from a landowner. St. Vincent’s School for Boys’ property is located outside the city limits, but within the city’s previous sphere of influence. In updating its general plan, the city determined to remove the property from the city’s planning area and to seek its removal from the sphere of influence. St. Vincent’s challenged the city’s general plan, its housing element, and the EIR for the general plan. The court rejected each of St. Vincent’s claims. The court also awarded the city significant costs associated with certification of the record despite the fact that St. Vincent’s had elected to prepare the record. [RTMM Counsel of record: Tiffany K. Wright]
Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova
(2007) 40 Cal.4th 412
The Supreme Court held that the EIR prepared for a 6,000-acre community plan and its first phase of development contained an adequate analysis of the near-term water supplies but did not adequately assess the long-term water supplies. The court held that the long-term water supply analysis was both procedurally and factually inadequate. Procedurally, the Final EIR improperly claimed to tier from a future regional water planning environmental document, failed to explicitly incorporate and/or tier from the impact and mitigation discussion of another relevant EIR, and relied on a mitigation measure that would curtail development if an adequate water supply did not materialize without analyzing the environmental impacts of such action. Factually, the Final EIR failed to explain discrepancies between the estimated surface water supply and water demand at build-out and estimates contained in the Water Forum EIR, an important regional water planning document. The court concluded on these bases that the Final EIR lacked substantial evidence that the requisite water supply bore a reasonable likelihood of being available for the community plan in the long term. The court also held that the County should have re-circulated a Draft EIR that addressed the impacts of groundwater pumping on the Cosumnes River and its dependent species before preparation of the Final EIR because its failure to do so denied the public and decision makers the opportunity to evaluate the project in light of all its potentially significant environmental impacts. [RTMM Counsel of record: James G. Moose and Sabrina V. Teller]
Friends of the Sierra Railroad v. Tuolumne Park and Recreation District
(2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 643
The Court of Appeal held that a transfer of land between Tuolumne Park and Recreation District (TPRD) and the Me-Wuk Tribe was not a “project” requiring environmental review under CEQA. At issue was a historic railroad right-of-way running through the parcel conveyed to the Tribe that the Tribe said it would use for public hiking trails. There was evidence in the record, however, that the Tribe acquired the right-of-way to further its plans for developing its adjacent property. The petitioner group was also concerned that the Tribe could escape future CEQA review by applying to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to place the land in trust. Friends of the Sierra Railroad argued that TPRD was required to carry out a CEQA analysis prior to conveying its property to the Tribe. The court held that while the development of the property surrounding the historic resource was reasonably foreseeable, review of conceivable impacts on the historic resource was premature in the absence of any concrete development proposals from the Tribe. The court stated that ordering CEQA review in the absence of a plan involving an identifiable impact would not be meaningful. [RTMM Counsel of record: Whitman F. Manley, Sabrina V. Teller and Michele A. Tong]
Save Our Neighborhood v. Lishman
(2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1288
The Court of Appeal held that the City of Placerville should have prepared an EIR for the proposed construction of a hotel, gas station, and convenience store complex, rather than relying on an addendum to a mitigated negative declaration adopted for an earlier project that involved the same land and contained similar components, but was never built. Opponents of the proposed project argued that an addendum was inappropriate because the proposed project did not involve only minor technical changes from the previous project, but rather, would cause new significant environmental effects and substantial increases in previously identified effects. The court held that the project was a “new” project, rather than a modification of the previously approved version, because they had different project proponents and the court could find no evidence in the record that the new project proponent had relied on the previous project’s plans and studies for his application for the new version. Thus, the court ruled that the City’s application of Public Resources Code section 21166, governing subsequent or supplemental review of previously studied projects, and CEQA Guidelines section 15164, regarding the use of addenda, were inapplicable to the new project. [RTMM Counsel of record: Whitman F. Manley and Sabrina V. Teller]
The Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento
(2005) 124 Cal.App.4th 903
The Court of Appeal held that the City of Sacramento should prepare an EIR for a proposed 139-unit, single-family residential project in the Pocket neighborhood in southern Sacramento, finding that the comments of neighbors opposed to the project and the opinions of members of the Planning Commission qualified as the requisite “substantial evidence” under the “fair argument” standard that significant impacts may result, and therefore, the City’s mitigated negative declaration for the project was insufficient. At issue were aesthetic impacts associated with the project’s design, two parallel rows of detached, one- and two-story single-family homes along a narrow private street, and the project’s consistency with existing land use regulations and policies applicable to the site. The court also held that the City’s interpretation of its own regulations was not entitled to the traditional, significant deference, but rather, when the document at issue is a negative declaration, the less deferential “fair argument” standard also applies to the agency’s threshold determination of a project’s consistency with the agency’s land use policies and regulations. [RTMM Counsel of record: Tina A. Thomas and Sabrina V. Teller]
Association for Sensible Development at Northstar, Inc. v. Placer County
(2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1289
The Court of Appeal held the so-called “90-day rule” applicable to petitions filed under the California Environmental Quality Act does not require the petitioner to schedule a specific hearing date on the merits within the 90-day period after filing the petition. Rather, simply filing a “request for hearing” is enough. An earlier case – McCormick v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 352 – had held the petitioner had to “take affirmative steps sufficient to place the matter on the court’s docket for a hearing.” (198 Cal.App.3d at p. 358.) In ASDAN, the Court ruled the McCormick decision was no longer good law in light of 1994 amendments to Public Resources Code section 21167.4, the section that establishes the 90-day rule. [RTMM Counsel of record: Whitman F. Manley]
Sierra Club v. County of Napa
(2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490
The Court of Appeal affirmed that Napa County complied with CEQA when it certified a final EIR for a wine warehousing and distribution facility in an area designated for general industrial use near the Napa airport and found proposed alternatives economically infeasible. Sierra Club challenged the County’s rejection of project alternatives based on evidence from the project applicant that the alternatives were economically infeasible. The court rejected the petitioners’ arguments that CEQA requires evidence of economic feasibility to be presented within the EIR itself, and that information the agency receives relating to economic feasibility must be circulated for public review prior to the agency’s final decision on the project. The court further confirmed that agencies are to be afforded considerable deference in determining whether proposed projects are consistent with the agency’s general plan. [RTMM Counsel of record: James G. Moose and Sabrina V. Teller]
CalBeach Advocates v. City of Solana Beach
(2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 529
The Court of Appeal affirmed the City of Solana Beach’s use of CEQA’s emergency exemption to approve a permit for a seawall in order to protect homes from the imminent collapse of coastal bluffs. Opponents of the seawall argued that the sudden, catastrophic collapse of the coastal bluffs was not an emergency because CEQA defines an emergency as an “unexpected occurrence.” The court rejected this argument, holding that the CEQA exemption did not require that emergencies be “unexpected” when the purpose of the project was to prevent an emergency. [RTMM Counsel of record: James G. Moose and Tiffany K. Wright]
Californians Against Waste v. Department of Conservation
(2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 317
The issue before the court was how, under the California Beverage container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, the Department of Conservation should calculate the “processing fees” for beverage containers. The “returns based” methodology adopted by DOC had, in effect, created a disincentive for beverage manufacturers to use recyclable containers. The “sales based” approach advocated by CAW eliminated such disincentive, and thereby encouraged the beverage industry to utilize containers with high recycling rates. The Court of Appeal affirmed that the “sales based” methodology served the stated goals of the Act, and ordered the DOC to revise its calculations accordingly. [RTMM Counsel of record: James G. Moose and Ashle T. Crocker]
Friends of Davis v. City of Davis
(2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004
The Court of Appeal affirmed that the City of Davis did not act unlawfully under CEQA by failing to construe the City’s design review ordinance to exclude Borders Books from locating in the City. The court rejected the argument that the design review ordinance must be construed to allow tenant-specific review of previously approved projects. The court held that an agency’s interpretation of its own ordinance is entitled to great weight and that the interpretation is unaffected by CEQA. The court also rejected as speculative the argument that Borders Books’ social and economic effects must be regarded as a potentially significant change in the environment, thus warranting a supplemental EIR as a matter of law. The court stated that social and economic effects are not significant effects, unless, on the basis of substantial evidence, they cause a foreseeable physical change in the environment. [RTMM Counsel of record: Whitman F. Manley]
Riverwatch v. County of San Diego
(1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1428
The Court of Appeal held that the final EIR approved by the County of San Diego complied with CEQA because it contained sufficient information on the impacts of both a proposed rock quarry and a road widening. The court rejected a citizen group’s argument that the EIR was deficient because it deferred until a later point more detailed environmental analysis. Although the extent of mitigation depended upon the future analysis, the EIR’s conclusion that the impact could be successfully mitigated was based on sufficient information. The court also held that the EIR’s baseline did not have to account for allegations of prior illegal activity that occurred at or near the vicinity of the project. [RTMM Counsel of record: Tina A. Thomas]
Hewlett v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp.
(1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 499
The Court of Appeal upheld a trial court decision imposing civil penalties and a permanent injunction on Squaw Valley Ski Corporation for cutting down trees without necessary permits. The decision was the culmination of a long-running dispute over Squaw Valley’s efforts to develop Shirley Canyon, a wilderness area just north of the Squaw Valley Ski Resort. The appellate court as follows: (i) violations of conditions in a use permit can form the basis for an unfair competition claim under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; (ii) where a developer commits multiple violations of its use permit or of other permit requirements, these violations can establish an “unlawful business practice,” even if all of the violations occurred in the context of a single project; and (iii) a trial court has broad discretion to impose civil penalties and to craft injunctive relief to prevent further violations. Injunctive relief may go so far as to preclude future development. [RTMM Counsel of record: Michael H. Remy]
Chaparral Greens v. City of Chula Vista
(1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1134
The Court of Appeal held that the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego complied with CEQA when they certified a first-tier EIR for the Otay Ranch project in southwestern San Diego County. The court rejected arguments by a local environmental group that the EIR had failed to take into account the project’s alleged impact on the ongoing, multi-jurisdictional efforts to preserve vestiges of coastal sage scrub habitat. The court likewise rejected the petitioner’s argument that the City and County violated CEQA by failing to revise or recirculate the Program EIR based on information that became available after the final Program EIR was issued, but prior to its certification. The court held that neither the issuance of draft conservation guidelines nor the release of multi-species mapping and evaluation information revealed new project-related impacts on biological resources requiring recirculation of the EIR. Finally, the court upheld an award of costs to the City. [RTMM Counsel of record: Tina A. Thomas, James G. Moose and Whitman F. Manley]
Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus
(1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144
The Court of Appeal held that substantial evidence in the record before the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors supported a “fair argument” that a proposed golf course/resort in a rural area might cause significant environmental effects, and thus ordered the preparation of an EIR. The evidence in question indicated that the approval of the project might be “growth-inducing” and, in particular, might lead to the ultimate development of homes near the golf course. The court rejected the County’s argument that it could deal with future growth issues later, at the time when actual residential development proposals were filed with the County. [RTMM Counsel of record: James G. Moose]
Natural Resources Defense Council v. California Fish & Game Commission
(1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1104
The Court of Appeal held that the Fish and Game Commission, in scrutinizing a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act, must advance the species to “candidacy” status if the petition, considered in light of the Department of Fish and Game’s staff report and any comments received by the Commission, contains sufficient information to lead a reasonable person to conclude there is a substantial possibility the requested listing should occur. The court thus struck down the Commission’s refusal to advance the California gnatcatcher to candidacy status, and directed the Commission to reconsider the petition in light of the appropriate evidentiary standard. [RTMM Counsel of record: Whitman F. Manley]
Sacramento County v. Local Agency Formation Commission
(1992) 3 Cal.4th 903
The California Supreme Court ruled that the “rational relation” test must be applied in determining the constitutionality of a statute defining the appropriate group of voters to participate in an incorporation election. In so doing, the court upheld a California statute limiting voters to those who resided within the boundaries of the proposed area to be incorporated. In reaching its decision, the court was required to overrule one of its earlier decisions addressing similar issues. Before the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal had applied strict scrutiny in reviewing the pertinent statute, and had concluded that, in a municipal election involving matters with potential countywide impacts, registered voters in the entire county were eligible to vote.
The Court of Appeal had also upheld the lower court’s determination to require preparation of an EIR as a precondition to incorporation. Applying the “fair argument” standard of review, the trial court had determined that substantial evidence in the record showed that significant environmental effects might occur, and thus required preparation of an EIR. The Supreme Court upheld that portion of the Court of Appeal decision, although the appellate decision is no longer citable statewide precedent on the environmental issue. [RTMM Counsel of record: Tina A. Thomas, James G. Moose and Whitman F. Manley]
City of Sacramento v. State Water Resources Control Board
(1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 960
The Court of Appeal determined that the California Department of Food and Agriculture (now the Department of Pesticide Regulation) was the appropriate “lead agency” in dealing with the annual formulation and approval of “Rice Pesticide Plans.” The appellate court defined the “project” requiring the preparation of an environmental impact analysis as the formulation, approval, and implementation of the Rice Pesticide Plans. [RTMM Counsel of record: Tina A. Thomas and James G. Moose]
Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado
(1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of a county board of supervisors requiring an EIR for a use permit for exploratory drilling for gold. The applicant had filed suit demanding that the permit be issued based on a mitigated negative declaration, as recommended by planning department staff. The applicant argued that the county could not require an EIR because, during previous administrative proceedings relating to the same property, the county had approved a similar conditional use permit based on a mitigated negative declaration. In requiring an EIR, the board of supervisors had relied principally on evidence submitted by the neighbors regarding traffic, dust, and noise. [RTMM Counsel of record: Tina A. Thomas and James G. Moose]
Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford
(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692
The Court of Appeal held that an EIR prepared for the construction of a coal-fired cogeneration power plant was inadequate for failing to properly assess secondary and cumulative air quality impacts, and because its analyses of groundwater impacts and project alternatives were deficient. The court also held that the City’s General Plan was inadequate because it depended on information contained in documents not referenced in the General Plan itself. [RTMM Counsel of record: Michael H. Remy and James G. Moose]
Midway Orchards v. County of Butte
(1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 765
The Court of Appeal held that a general plan amendment does not become effective until thirty days after adoption, so that affected citizens can circulate a referendum petition challenging such legislative action during that period. Based on this conclusion, the court held invalid an ordinance purporting to create a development agreement consistent with such an amendment because the ordinance was adopted prior to the expiration of the 30-day referendum period. In an unpublished portion of the decision, the court also held that the form of the referendum petition challenging the general plan amendment was legally valid. [RTMM Counsel of record: Michael H. Remy and James G. Moose]
Californians for Native Salmon and Steelhead
Association et al. v. Department of Forestry
(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1419
The Court of Appeal permitted the filing and prosecution of a “pattern and practice” action brought by various plaintiffs to challenge the procedures followed by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection in approving timber harvesting plans (THPs). The complaint alleged that the Department had a policy of failing to issue timely responses to public comments on proposed THPs or to issue such responses at all, and of consistently failing to analyze the cumulative environmental impacts of such plans. The appellate court held that a justifiable controversy existed as to whether the Department’s policies violated applicable law, and that a declaratory relief action was an appropriate procedural vehicle for challenging those policies.
Mountain Lion Coalition et al., v.
California Fish and Game Commission et al.
(1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043
The Court of Appeal upheld a superior court decision setting aside a regulation authorizing a trophy hunting season for mountain lions for the fall of 1988. The appellate court determined, among other things, that the Fish and Game Commission and the Department of Fish and Game were required to assess the cumulative impacts of potential future hunting seasons, rather than just the impacts of a single hunting season. [RTMM Counsel of record: Michael H. Remy and James G. Moose]
Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mt. Shasta
(1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433
The Court of Appeal required the City of Mount Shasta to prepare findings prior to approving a general plan amendment that would allow a shopping center project, even though the applicant had not yet submitted any specific development proposal. The court required that the findings address the feasibility of environmentally superior project alternatives before the City could adopt a statement of overriding considerations. [RTMM Counsel of record: Michael H. Remy and James G. Moose]
Paul Baily et al. v. County of El Dorado
(1985) 162 Cal.App.3d 94
The Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ to compel the respondent county to place an initiative measure on the ballot. The initiative measure required the creation of buffer zones surrounding strip and pit mining projects. Applicants for a mining project sought unsuccessfully to halt the processing of the initiative, claiming that the proposed ordinance was an invalid exercise of the county’s police powers, and that the “short title” of the initiative was misleading. [RTMM Counsel of record: Michael H. Remy and Tina A. Thomas]
Environmental Planning & Information Council v.
Superior Court (Detmold Publishing)
(1985) 36 Cal.3d 188
The California Supreme Court held that an environmental organization can constitutionally proceed with a secondary boycott against advertisers of a newspaper in order to influence editorial policy. [RTMM Counsel of record: Michael H. Remy and Tina A. Thomas]
Environmental Council of Sacramento v. County of Sacramento
(1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 428
The Court of Appeal held that, once a lead agency has certified and adopted an EIR, the agency cannot change the document’s conclusions regarding the significance of environmental impacts without substantial evidence supporting such changes. The respondent board of supervisors had, after certification of an EIR concluding that a development project would result in significant environmental impacts on agricultural land, substituted its own judgment for that of staff with respect to the significance of the impact, and had concluded that the impact was less than significant. There was no substantial evidence, however, supporting this change in the impact classification. [RTMM Counsel of record: Michael H. Remy and Tina A. Thomas]
Environmental Planning & Information Council v.
County of El Dorado
(1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350
The Court of Appeal held that an EIR for a general plan amendment must analyze the project’s impacts on the existing environment, rather than simply compare the project’s impacts to the eventual impacts that could occur in the future through build out under existing specific plan or general plan designations. [RTMM Counsel of record: Michael H. Remy and Tina A. Thomas]
Perley v. County of Calaveras
(1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 424
The Court of Appeal upheld the use of a mitigated negative declaration for a seven-acre strip mine. The court concluded that the neighbors’ testimony regarding noise, dust, and traffic did not constitute substantial evidence requiring preparation of an EIR. [RTMM Counsel of record: Michael H. Remy and Tina A. Thomas]
Rural Land Owners’ Association v. City of Lodi
(1982) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013
The Court of Appeal rejected a harmless error standard under CEQA. The court also held that the respondent city had failed to adequately respond to agencies’ comments on the EIR for a proposed development project. Finally, the court held that the city’s administrative findings were too ambiguous to apprise interested parties and a reviewing court of the basis for the city’s administrative action. [RTMM Counsel of record: Michael H. Remy and Tina A. Thomas]
Sutter Sensible Planning, Inc. v. County of Sutter
(1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 813
The Court of Appeal required Sutter County to recirculate an EIR when significant new information became available regarding the potential of a proposed tomato processing facility to cause environmental impacts. [RTMM Counsel of record: Michael H. Remy and Tina A. Thomas]
