By William W. Abbott

South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (October 8, 2013, C067764) ___ Cal.App.4th ___.

Starting in 2005, KKP submitted an application for a mixed use commercial center to be located in Nevada County on a 20 acre site. The proposal included a 60,000 square foot grocery store anchor, two retail buildings, two drive through restaurants and nearly 500 parking stalls. Four parcels would be retained by the property owner, and the proposal accommodated roughly 42,000 square feet of light industrial and office uses on the owner’s retained land. The last parcel was restricted to wetland/open space uses. The County released the DEIR in November 2007, disclosing three significant unmitigated impacts; two traffic impacts and one cumulative air impact. After an extended public review process, including additional analysis submitted by the applicant, the Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the FEIR in January 2009. The staff report for this hearing included a staff recommendation for an approval, with a variation on alternative 4 in the DEIR. The commission voted to recommend certification of the EIR and the various approvals associated with the project to the Board of Supervisors, including the staff recommended plan (which capped the amount of commercial footage and increased the open space area.) KKP then developed two alternatives responsive to the Planning Commission recommendation of the staff’s alternative. Staff evaluated KKP’s two additional alternatives, and recommended that the Planning Commission formally recommend KPP’s second alternative to the Board of Supervisors.

Continue Reading ADDITIONAL STAFF GENERATED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE DID NOT COMPEL RECIRCULATION OF THE DRAFT EIR NOR WERE ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF INFEASIBILITY REQUIRED

By Glen Hansen

In Garcia v. Governing Board of Bellflower Unified School District (October 24, 2013, B247320) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ a former employee of the Bellflower Unified School District (“District”) filed an extraordinary writ petition against the District relating to her alleged exposure to mold. Her counsel later served on the District’s counsel in that proceeding a request for records from the District pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) (“PRA”). The letter listed eight (8) categories of records that were requested pursuant to the PRA. During the next month, the former employee’s counsel sent several additional letters and an email to the District’s counsel because the District did not respond to the original letter request. The District’s general counsel finally responded with a letter stating that there were no documents responsive to four of the requests, that two of the requests were overly broad and vague, and that documents responsive to two of the requests were exempt from disclosure. The former employee’s counsel then sent a ‘meet and confer’ letter to the District’s general counsel disputing the District’s objections and responses. But when the District did not respond to that letter, the former employee commenced mandamus proceeding seeking to compel the District to comply with the PRA. 

Continue Reading A Petitioner Is Entitled To Attorneys’ Fees Under The Public Records Act If The Petitioner Succeeds On Any Significant Issue And Achieves Some Of The Benefit Sought In The Litigation

 By William W. Abbott

Griffith v. Pajaro Valley Water Mgt. Agency (October 14, 2013) ___ Cal.App.4th ___. 

The long saga of the groundwater augmentation strategy for Pajaro Valley in Santa Cruz County has reached its next, and possibly final stopping point. The underlying saga is a telltale forecast of what lies ahead for California, with the inevitable conflicts generated by resource allocation and management. In Griffith, the specific conflict stems from the intersection of groundwater management strategies designed in part to better manage water resources and to reduce saltwater intrusion with the citizen rights created by Proposition 218.

Continue Reading Court Affirms Groundwater Augmentation Charge Exempt From Proposition 218 As A Water Service Charge

By Glen Hansen

In September 2013, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sent a draft rule to clarify the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act to the Office of Management and Budget for interagency review. The proposed rule is designed to provide greater consistency, certainty, and predictability nationwide in determining what are “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. The proposed rule includes exclusions from Clean Water Act jurisdiction for:

•         Non-tidal drainage, including tiles, and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land.

•         Artificially irrigated areas that would be dry if irrigation stops.

•         Artificial lakes or ponds used for purposes such as stock watering or irrigation.

•         Areas artificially flooded for rice growing.

•         Artificial ornamental waters created for primarily aesthetic reasons.

•         Water-filled depressions created as a result of construction activity.

•         Pits excavated in uplands for fill, sand, or gravel that fill with water.

The draft rule takes into consideration the draft science report titled “Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters,” which presents a review and synthesis of peer reviewed scientific literature. EPA’s independent Science Advisory Board is soliciting public comment and will hold a public peer review meeting later this year. That report will eventually provide a scientific basis needed to clarify Clean Water Act jurisdiction, including a description of the factors that influence connectivity and the mechanisms by which connected waters affect downstream waters.

For more information:

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/CWAwaters.cfm;

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=238345

Glen Hansen is senior counsel at Abbott & Kindermann, LLP. For questions relating to this article or any other California land use, real estate, environmental and/or planning issues contact Abbott & Kindermann, LLP at (916) 456-9595.

The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, or the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Because of the changing nature of this area of the law and the importance of individual facts, readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues. 

Abbott & Kindermann, LLP is pleased to announce an upcoming seminar at which Diane Kindermann Henderson will be speaking.  As Ms. Kindermann’s guest, you are eligible for 20% off the registration fee!

Proactive Subdivision Map and Entitlement Strategies Post-Recession
November 19, 2013
Sacramento, CA
Crowne Plaza Sacramento, 5321 Date Avenue

Register online: http://www.lorman.com/392308
Call: 866-352-9539
Discount code: W5788086
Priority code: 15999

 

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (“CVRWQCB”) adopted new waste discharge requirements within the Tulare Lake Basin area on September 19, 2013, in order to protect ground and surface water from irrigated agricultural discharges.  The area impacted by the new requirements includes farmland in Fresno, Tulare, Kings and Kern counties.  The requirements apply to farmers in the region who join an approved third-party group or coalition.  (Those growers who do not join a coalition will be directly regulated by the CVRWQCB, and will be subject to higher costs.)  Under the new rules, farmers will be required to report their water quality protection practices to their respective coalition.  Growers who have not already implemented practices that protect water quality will be required to improve their practices.  All growers will be required to prepare nitrogen management plans. Farmers whose land lies above the most vulnerable groundwater aquifers must submit information to the coalition on their nitrogen use efficiency. The coalition will prepare technical reports, conduct required studies and monitoring, and submit reports to the Central Valley Water Board on behalf of the growers.

For more information:

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/press_room/announcements/press_releases/r5_2013sep24_ilrptlbwdr_press.pdf

http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/09/19/3507274/state-oks-new-water-rules-for.html

http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/x558589998/State-mandates-additional-groundwater-monitoring-in-valley

By William W. Abbott, Diane Kindermann, Katherine J. Hart and Glen Hansen

Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann’s 2013 CEQA update. It is cumulative for the year, with the newest cases issued in the 3rd quarter are shown in italics and bold type face.

To review our prior annual summaries, click here: 2013; 2012; 2011; 2010; 2009.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.       IS IT A PROJECT?

A.    California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1171.  (Page 1)

B.     Neighbors for Fair Planning v. City and County of San Francisco (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 540. (Page 1)

II.      EXEMPTIONS

A.    Michael May v. City of Milpitas (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1307. (Page 3)

B.     Golden Gate Land Holding, LLC v. East Bay Regional Park District (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 353. (Page 3)

C.     Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court 210 Cal.App.4th 1006. (Page 6)

D.    Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301. (Page 6)

III.     NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS

A.    Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. County of Marin (2013) 218 Cal. App. 4th 209. (Page 8)

B.     Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School District (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1013. (Page 9)

IV.     ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS

A.    San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1. (Page 9)

B.     Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439. (Page 12)

C.     Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 832. (Page 14)

D.    Masonite Corporation v. County of Mendocino (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 230. (Page15)

E.     Save Panoche Valley v. San Benito County (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 503. (Page 18)

F.      North Coast Rivers Alliance et al. v. Marin Municipal Water District Board of Directors (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614. (Page 20)

G.    Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara(2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059. (Page 24)

V.     FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT CEQA PROCEEDINGS

A.    POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Board (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th. 681. (Page 26)

VI.     LITIGATION

A.    Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889. (Page 27)

B.     San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1167. (Page 29)

C.     Comunidad En Accion v. L.A. City Council (2013) ___ Cal.App.4th ___. (Page 30)

D.    Alliance for the Protection of the Auburn Community Environment v. County of Placer (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 25. (Page 31)

Click here to access the complete update.

Abbott & Kindermann, LLP is pleased to announce an upcoming seminar at which Diane Kindermann Henderson will be speaking.  As Ms. Kindermann’s guest, you are eligible for 20% off the registration fee!

Proactive Subdivision Map and Entitlement Strategies Post-Recession
November 19, 2013
Sacramento, CA
Crowne Plaza Sacramento, 5321 Date Avenue

Click here to view the brochure and for more details.

Register online: http://www.lorman.com/392308
Call: 866-352-9539
Discount code: W5788086
Priority code: 15999

 

By Katherine J. Hart

In Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439 (Neighbors), the California Supreme Court held that a lead agency has discretion to omit existing conditions analyses by substituting a baseline consisting of environmental conditions projected to exist solely in the future, but to do so the agency must justify its decision by showing an existing conditions analysis would be misleading or without informational value.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Resolves Baseline Issue In Neighbors for Smart Rail Ruling

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2013/09/13/arena-bill-sails-through-legislature.html?ana=RSS&s=article_search&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bizj_sacramento+%28Sacramento+Business+Journal%29