CEQA/Environmental

During the planning and environmental review process for a county’s proposed subway extension project, a school district and a city objected to the placement of a subway tunnel under a high school, contending that the county had failed to comply with CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.). Issues involved whether (1) the final environmental impact statement relied on significant new information that was not in the draft statement, requiring recirculation of a new draft for comment; (2) the county violated CEQA by failing to analyze localized air pollution and public health impacts from construction of the project; and (3) the public hearing on the final impact statement violated the statutory requirements of the Public Utilities Code.

Owner of a residential mobile home park located in the coastal zone applied to the city to convert the park to residential ownership under Govt. Code, § 66427.5, which facilitates such conversions by limiting a local agency’s authority to deny an application, unless the application fails to comply with the specific requirements of the statute. The city rejected the application for failure to comply with two other statutory schemes: (1) Govt. Code, § 65590, part of the Mello Act, which creates minimum requirements for low-and-moderate income housing within the coastal zone, and (2) the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Pub. Resources Code, § 30000 et seq.) which generally governs developments in the coastal zone. Primary issues involved whether the conflicting terms of the three statutory schemes could be reconciled and what permits were needed to convert a mobile home park located in the coastal zone.

The California Coastal Commission approved a developer’s proposed project on an 84-acre parcel of coastal property located in a biologically diverse and environmentally sensitive area. Nearby residents challenged the Commission’s approval of the project. Issues included whether the local agency’s determination that the project was exempt from CEQA was erroneous, whether the Commission erred by failing to review the local agency’s decision, and whether the Commission committed various procedural violations of the California Coastal Act.