2002 AGN MAY 07 I08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP of reason with substantial evidence. In connection with a specific plan update, Napa County concluded that a number of the mitigation measures adopted as part of the original specific plan were not feasible and deleted them from the certified EIR for the updated specific plan. The Court upheld the County's action because it was supported by findings and substantial evidence that the mitigation measures were infeasible due to lack offending, the need to acquire property through eminent domain and the County's lack of control over the implementation of the mitigation measures. In Guardians ofElk Creek Old Growth v. California Department ofForestryandFire Protection, (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 1431, the Court ruled that the 90 day deadline for the petitioner in a CEQA proceeding to file a request for hearing is not tolled by a change of venue when the transferee court gives proper notice of the transfer. In this case, an environmental group filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the approval of a timber harvest plan under CEQA. Upon a motion by real parties in interest, the matter was transferred from Sacramento to Mendocino and the Mendocino Court gave the parties notice that the case had been filed and was active. On the 92nd day after the petition was filed, the real parties in interest filed a motion to dismiss the petition based on petitioner's failure to request a hearing within 90 days as required by Public Resources Code section 21167.4, subd. (a). Eight days later, and 100 days after the petition was filed, the petitioner filed the required request. The Court upheld the dismissal of the case, finding that a petitioner who has notice of the change of venue must file the request for hearing in the new court within the 90 day deadline. In Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 90 Cal.AppAth 1162, the court upheld the City's finding that its systematic housing inspection program was exempt from CEQA review based upon its local CEQA guidelines. The City's local CEQA guidelines exempted projects consisting of "the restoration or rehabilitation of deteriorated or damaged structures to meet current public health, safety and environmental standards." Invoking this exemption, the City implemented a program to bring substandard housing up to current codes. Plaintiff, an industry group representing landlords, challenged the use of the exemption to support the program. The court rejected this challenge, finding that plaintiff had not produced substantial evidence that the City's code enforcement program has the potential for a substantial adverse environmental impact. To the contrary, the record contained substantial evidence to support the City's finding that a categorical exemption was properly applied to its code enforcement program. This evidence consisted of a study demonstrating that the code enforcement program would have no significant effect on housing availability and displacement of residents. This case shows how beneficial it can be to have local CEQA guidelines that are carefully tailored to an agency's particular policies and goals and how important it is for the agency to develop a thorough record at the administrative level to support its decisions. In Jobe v. City of Orange (2001) 88 Cal. App. 4th 412, the Court held that real parties in interest may not recover attorneys' fees under the "Private Attorney General" doctrine unless they can demonstrate that their defense of the litigation conferred a significant benefit on the public as a whole and was not motivated merely by their personal interests in the outcome. In Jobe, a neighbor of an Orange County private high school filed an unsuccessful CEQA challenge against the city's approval of permit and mitigated negative declaration for expansion of the school. After the neighbor's claims were rejected, the school, a non-profit organization, argued that it was entitled to a1 R5913°a" , i' 7 ^u+£ -k L/>E�-,@.R'�k a�` r"§s;.