skip to Main Content

CEQA Negative Declaration Case – Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa

  • May 30, 2018

On behalf of the Council of Infill Builders, Monchamp Meldrum LLP submitted a request for publication of Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa (Case No. A144782) – a classic NIMBY case that opposed conversion of a defunct hospital into the ‘Dream Center’ so that Social Advocates for Youth could provide housing and supportive services for 63 youth. Requests for publication were submitted by a host of organizations and were granted by the First District Court of Appeal on May 24. The…

Continue Reading

CEQA Case – Don’t Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego/Verizon Case

  • May 2, 2018
Don't Cell Our Parks V. City Of San Diego/Verizon Case

The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s recent case Don’t Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego/Verizon upholds application of the Class 3 categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines 15303 to a new wireless telecommunications pole in a city-owned park. www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D071863.PDF This case adds to existing case law that applies Class 3 to other telecommunications equipment (Aptos Residents and Robinson (antennas on poles) and San Francisco Beautiful (cabinets)). The court noted that while none of the examples included in the Guidelines…

Continue Reading

CEQA Case – Rodeo Citizens Association v. County of Contra Costa

  • April 23, 2018
CEQA Case - Rodeo Citizens Association V. County Of Contra Costa

A recently published CEQA case - Rodeo Citizens Association v. County of Contra Costa addresses issues related to project description, greenhouse gas analysis, and accident release analysis. www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A151184.PDF The First District Court of Appeal upheld an EIR's GHG analysis for an existing Phillips 66 refinery. The court found it acceptable under CEQA for the EIR to not quantify greenhouse gas emissions from downstream uses of recovered propane and butane because 1) The lead agency has discretion to design the EIR;…

Continue Reading

CEQA Case – Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar

  • March 30, 2018
Creed-21 V. City Of Wildomar

The California Supreme Court’s recent denial of petitioner’s request for review of Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 690 affirms that discovery can be sought to challenge standing in CEQA cases. Since publication in Dec 17 we have successfully obtained discovery orders to determine the true nature of petitioners’ members and others are doing the same. While there have been legislative efforts to require disclosure of petitioners’ interest, it is the courts that are defining and interpreting CEQA.…

Continue Reading
Back To Top