CEQA

Essentially: Mahon appeals a summary judgement against him, that his project was not deemed approved under the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA.)  The PSA generally requires an agency generally must approve or disapprove a project within 60 days after its determination that the project is exempt from CEQA.  In  a nutshell: While the agency did not meet the 60 days, the Court determined that while the public was noticed regarding the project, the notice did not state that the would be deemed approved within 60 days if the agency failed to act.  The Court did note that Mahon could have published his own notice with such wording, but he failed to do so.  Interesting article.

County of San Diego v. Grossman-Cuyamaca Community College District (2006), 141 Cal.App4th 86

Grossman-Cuyamaca Community College District (District) prepared a master plan covering 20 construction and remodel projects (projects), certified a Final EIR for the porject, adopted a statement of overriding considerations and CEQA findings , and approved the project, identifying it is legally and economically infeasible for the District to pay for any off-campus road improvements for the project’s off-campus traffic impacts.

Rapanos v. United States 547 U.S._______ (2006)

A brief discussion is below, and the Kennedy opinion is attached, too.

Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (Alleghany Properties, Inc.) (2006),  Cal.App.4th  
http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/ca/caapp4th/slip/2006/c049527.html

Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) challenged the City of Sacramento (City) and certification by Sutter County (Sutter) of the EIR and issuance of incidental take permits by Department of Fish and Game (DFG) on essentially three points: 1) agencies failed to consider the impacts that the Joint Vision Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and County of Sacramento (County) and other development projects would have on the Swainson’s hawk (hawks) and giant garter snake (snakes), 2) the mitigation measures are impermissibly unfunded, voluntary, unenforceable, and infeasible, and 3) the 0.5:1 ratio for the purchase of mitigation land is infeasible.  The Court did not find in favor of the plaintiff on any of the points.

City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006), 39 Cal.4th 341  

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s117816.pdf

The Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) challenged the EIR prepared by the Board of Trustees of the California State University (Trustees) for the expansion of the CSU Monterey Bay (CSUMB) on the basis that three of Trustees’s findings were dependent on incorrect legal assumptions.  Trustees' argument was essentially (1) Any payment by Trustees to FORA for the purpose of capital improvement in Fort Ord is an assessment, regardless of form; (2) public agencies are exempt from assessment except as permitted by the Legislature; and (3) the Legislature has permitted assessments only for the purposes set out in chapter 13.7 of the Government Code (§ 54999 et seq.).

Save Our Neighborhood et al. v. Lishman, et. al. (2006) DJDAR 8335, #C049525
Decision: http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/ca/caapp4th/slip/2006/c049525.html 

Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 911
Decision: http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/ca/caapp4th/slip/2006/h028539.html

Yet another Wal-Mart challenge, centering around urban decay and adequate public notice. The opponents questioned the opportunity for adequate public review and raised three points regarding urban decay impacts on the CBD: 1) City failed to do an initial study and thus did not produce information on whether the earlier studies adequately addressed the urban decay issues, 2) City could not rely on 2001 MND as primary CEQA document for a tiered EIR, and 3) the current EIR failed to explain why urban decay impacts were less than significant.