Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/2010

Home

October 25, 2009 I Volume 3 I No. 20 Zoning Bull~tin to be "considered by every public agency prior to its approval or dis- approval of a project." The court said that ~ 21061 was "express- ly limited to projects for which an EIR [was] otherwise required by CEQA"; it did not apply to projects rejected by the agency. Las Lomas had also argued that CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14) ~ 15270 required a public agency rejecting a project to do so "either before initiating environmental review under CEQA or after completing and certifying an EIR, and not at any time between those two events." Section i5270 states that "CEQA does not ap- ply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves." Citing the state Resource Agency's Discussion of ~ 15270, Las Lomas main- tained that Guidelines ~ 15270 and CEQA ~. 21080, subd. (b){5) in- tended to exempt agencies from having to conduct an EiR only un- der limited circumstances: when an agency determined from a "quick initial screening that the project was incompatible with existing zon- ing Or some other requirement so that the agency would be without legal authority to approve the project." The court rejected Las Lo- mas' contention. The court noted that neitllerGuidelines ~ 15270 nor the Resource Agency's Discussion of ~ 15270 "expressly states that a public agency that has initiated environmental review of a pro- posed project must complete and certify an EIR before rejecting the project." Section 15270 describes a particular circumstance that the statutory exemption of CEQA ~ 21080, subd. (b)(5) addresses. How- ever, ~ 15270 did "not suggest that exemption is limited to only that particular circumstance." To the contrary, concluded the court: "if an agency at any time decides not to proceed with a project, CEQA is inapplicable from that time forward." See also: Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster v. State Water Re- sources Control Bd., 12 Cal. App. 4th 1371, 16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 288 (2d Dist. 1993). - . /'\. i ) \ ' (--) Case Note: The court also rejected Las Lomas' claim that the . city's decision not to proceed with the project was a' deprivation of Las Lomas' property rights in violation of the 14th Amend- ment's due process protections. This was because Las Lomas did not have any property interest protected by federal (or state) procedural due process in the possibility of approval. The city's decisions whether to see to annex the site, enter into a develop- ment agreement, and adopt the proposed specific plan were dis- cretionary decisions. Las Lomas could assert no claim of entitle- (\ ment to the annexation,' development agreement, specific plan,,_~ and development entitlements that it sought. 4 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 20