Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Agenda Packets - Regular Meeting 8/3/2006AGENDA REDEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS MANAGER STEVEN PASAROW REGULAR. MEETING OF THE SAN JACINTO CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 3, 2006, 7 00 p.m. San Jacinto Unified School District Board Room 2045. South San Jacinto Avenue San Jacinto California 1. ORGANIZATION Call to Order Roll Call Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Special Presentations 5.9. Introduction new Fire Captain Dave Cabral / Battalion Chief Bot Michael .5.2 Proclamation to be presented to Keith Hunter regarding his patriotism PUBLIC COMMENTS: Now is the time for the•public to, address the Council on any subject within'the jurisdiction' of the City Council not listed on the agenda. Alimitation of three (3) minutes shall be set for each' person' desiring' to address the City Council. City Manager's previous month's public comments repo CONSENT CALENDAR The matters Hated under. Consent Calendar are; considered.roufine; and will be enacted by one motion by'City Council Members in the. form listed::. There wilt be --no. separate discussion on these ..items prior to'the'motion unless members of the. City Council, steff`orthe public requests a. specified item be removed endlor'discussed. if en item is pulled; it will be heard at the end of number `5. Staff Reports,' 3 1 Warrants at 08-03-06 /Approve 1 Finance Director 3.2 Action Minutes July 20, 2006 / Approve,% City Clerk Treasurer's Report for June 30, 2006 /Receive and File /Finance Director'. City Council Agenda: August 3, 2©06 'Page'215f 6.:. Treasurer's Report for June 30, 20061 Receive and File / Finance Director Audited City Financial Statements ; -Fiscal year ending June 30, 2005 / Accept and File / Finance Director Notice of Completion Traffic Signal and Street Improvements / Ramona Expressway and. Eagle Road /City: Engineer -; 1 } Approve the Notice of Completion 2) Authorize the release of retention in the amount in the amount of $31,190.13 thirty days after recordation of the Notice of Completion Measure A Audit Report for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 (ending 6/30/05) Accept and File / Finance Director Ordinance No 06-20 / An Ordinance amending the Redevelopment Plan for the Soboba Springs Redevelopment Project Area /Approve second reading and: adopt Ordinance 06-20 and by; further motion readby title only:.. An, Ordinance of the;City Council of the City of San Jacinto Amending : the . Time Limit of the Effectiveness of . the Redevelopment Plan for the Soboba Springs Redevelopment ". Project Area Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33333.6(d) Release of Bonds - Final Tract Map 30688 1) Release infull the labor and performance bonds 2) Direct City Clerk to notify developer and surety company of City's. action 3) Direct Special Districts Division and Public Works Division to assume maintenance: responsibility for the associated subdivision infrastructure Final Tract Map 32499 Lennar Homes of California .Inc 1) Approve Final Tract Map 32499for recordation 2) Authorize Mayor to, sign Final Tract Map 32499 3) Authorize City Manager to execute the subdivision agreement 4)" Authorize City Clerk to release said map for recordation UBLIC. HEARING 1 Rancho Estrella Specific Plan - to. develop 283 detached single family homes on 5,000 and 6,000 square foot lots, an 8.23 acre public park, 1.2 acres of public parks, 2.1 acres of greenbelt, a 4 acre detention basin, and 9.4 acre reserved for the future alignment of Highway 79. Tentative Tract Map No. 33141 /Applicant: Century American Development / Community Development. Director --:City Council Agenda Augusta, 2006 Page 5 'of 6 5.3 Resolution No: / A resolution supporting the efforts of the University of California Riverside (UCR) for a; School of Medicine / Approve. and Adopt City Manager MAYOR / COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS / DISCUSSIONS 6 1 Council MembersReports CLOSED SESSION 7.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9) - Name of Case and Number Workers Compensation Claim 03-30917 Claimant: Jennifer Royster Agency claimed against City of San Jacinto 7:2 , CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: Assessor Parcel No: (APN) 435-291-014 Agency negotiator Barry McClellan, City Manager Negotiating parties: Paul. Howard. and Dolly Howard Under negotiation:' Price and Terms 7:3 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: 201 E Main Street Agency Negotiator City Manager and City Attorney Negotiating Parties: Alonso Ledezma Under Negotiation: Price and Terms 7.4 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property:. 181 E Main Street Agency Negotiator City Manager and City Attorney Negotiating :Parties: Alonso Ledezma Under Negotiation: Price and Terms ADJOURNMENT If you challenge any action of the City Council in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearingdescribed in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City. Council (cio,the City Clerk) at, or prior to, the public hearing. City;Council Agenda Augusta; 2006 `Pacre 6 of 6 >' CHALLENGE TQ LAND USEDECISIONS. Any:personseeking,to challenge a decision regarding land use made by the City Council as' a result 'of a proceeding;;in which, bylaw a_ hearing: is required to be given, evidence.is required to be taken, and;the discretion in: the' determination' of facts,Is vested in'the City "Council, shall be required to commence that action 90 days following the:date on which the.'decision"of the, City Council becomes final as:provided in Code of Givil Procedure; Section 1094 6. 'Please refer to Code. of Civil: Procedure Section 1094.6 to:determine how to calculate:when a decision becomes final. It is the intention of"the City et San Jacinto :to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant at 'this meeting,, or; in'meetings on a;regular basis. you'wil need, special assistance beyond what 'is;normally provided, the City will attempt;to:accommodate;you in every.. reasonable :manner. Please contact City' Hall -at (951) 537:6358, at least 48 hours prior -to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation: is feasible. rporothyLfef asfSan5acy e oregoing agenda:tlh2(146-dayoft2006 into, cto heredy certify tfzat I caused.to de postedtte requareif Fy law. mit) G: Cheumard,'. City Cferk AGENDA ITEIVI August 3, 2006 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City s :ouncii FROM: Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Consideration and Approval of an Ordinance Amending the Redevelopment Plan for the Soboba Springs Redevelopment Project Area to Reduce the Plan Effectiveness Deadline by F Years RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City, by motion, approve second redinarGnd Ordinance No. 06-20, entitled, An Ordinance Of The City Council Of The City Of San Jacinto Amending The Time Limit Of The Effectiveness Of The Redevelopment Plan For The Soboba Springs Redevelopment Project Area Pursuant To Health And Safety Code Section 33333.6(D) ve BACKGROUND: In accordance with California Law, redevelopment plans adopted prior to January 1, 1994 must establish a timeframe for the expiration of the redevelopment plan that is not more than 40 years from the date the redevelopment plan is adopted or January 1, 2009, whichever is later. Additionally, an agency may receive tax increment and pay indebtedness under the redevelopment plan for no more than ten (10) years after the effectiveness of the redevelopment plan has expired. On December 27, 1983, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 767, adopting the Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the Soboba Springs Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area"). The current effectiveness deadline for the Redevelopment Plan is forty-five (45) years from the date of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan ("Effectiveness Deadline"). Page 1 of 2 RVPUB\HSHANE\717672.2 DISCUSSION: Pursuant to a yearly audit of the City of San. Jacinto RedeveicDment Agency, ("Agency"), it was brought to the Agency's attention that the Effectiveness Deadline of the Redevelopment Plan does not comply with the requirements at Health and Safety Code Section 33333.e. Adopting the attached Ordinance will reduce the Effectiveness .Deadline of the Redevelopment Plan by five (5) years. If the City Council adopts the attached Ordinance, the new Effectiveness Deadline for the Redevelopment Plan, for the Soboba Springs Project Area will be forty_ (40) years from the date the Redevelopment Plan was adopted. Thus the Redevelop :7 expire in 2g23 ather than in 2023. Reducing the Effectiveness Deadline of the Redevelopment Plan will bring the Effeness Deadline of the Redevelopment Pan i nto cormepa',ance with Sate law. FISCAL IMPACT: The recommended action has no negative fiscal impact; however, pur State law, the deadline to pay indebtedness and receive tax increment under a redevelopment plan expires no later than ten (10) years from the termination of the effectiveness deadline of the redevelopment plan, Therefore, the Agency's ability to receive tax increment and pay indebtedness under the Redevelopment Plan will expire no later than 2033. ATTACHMENTS: • Ordinance No 06-20 Amendino the Time Limit of the Effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan for the Soboba Springs Redevelopment Project Area Page 2 of 2 RVPUB?HSHANEi717672.2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) ORDINANCE NO. 06-2C AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO AMENDING THE TIME LIMIT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOBO A SPRINGS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33333.6(d)(1) WHEREAS, the City of San Jacinto Redevelopment Agency (Agency) is a community redevelopment agency duly created, established, and authorized to transact business and exercise its powers, all under and pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law (Pahl of Division 24, commencing with Section 33000 of the Health & Safety Code of the State of California) ("CRL"), and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 767 adopted on December 27, 1983„ the City Council of the City of San Jacinto ("City Council") adopted the Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the Soboba Springs Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area"); and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan currently provides that, among other things, the effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan expires forty-five (45) years from the date of adoption ("Effectiveness Deadline"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to CRL Section 33333.6(a), the effectiveness deadline for redevelopment plans adopted on or before December 30, 1993 may not exceed forty (40) years from the date of adoption of the redevelopment plan or January 1, 2009, whichever is later; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CRL Section 33333.6(d), the legislative body is required to amend any redevelopment plan adopted on or before December 30, 1993 that does not conform to the forty (40) year effectiveness deadline; and WHEREAS, it has been brought to the attention of the Agency and the City Council that the Effectiveness Deadline of the Redevelopment Plan does not comply with the forty (40) year effectiveness deadline required by CRL Section 33333.6(a); and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt this ordinance ("Ordinance") to amend and reduce the Effectiveness Deadline of the Redevelopment Plan, as more particularly set forth below, in accordance with CRL Section 33333.6; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CRL Section 33333.6(d)(2), such amendment may be adopted without compliance with standard procedures for redevelopment plan amendments; and WHEREAS; City staff has determined that the enactment of this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. (Pubic Resources Code t'...'-ection 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section I 5378(b)(4) because it is a fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment tc any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of th.aCty of San Jacinto, as follows: SECTION I, The City Council of the City hereby reduces the Effectiveness Deadline of the Redeveiopment Ran for the ScbobE SrL.7[17'CIE Redevelopment Project Area from foy-five (45) years to forty (4C) years. SECTION 2. Except to the extent a ionaer period of time may be ahowec pursuant tc the provisions of the CRL as it exists now or may be amended, the first sentence of Section 1000,00 of the Redevelopment Plan for the Soboba Springs Redevelopment Project Area is hereby amended and replaced in its entirety as follows: "Duration of Plan. Except for the nondiscrimination and nonsegreaation provisions which shall run in perpetuity, the provisions of this Plan shall be effective and the provisions of other documents formulated pursuant to this Plan may be made effective for forty (40) years from the date of the adoption of this Plan by the City Council...," SECTION 3. The Redevelopment Plan, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect, unmodified except as to the extent of the amendment expressly set forth in this Ordinance. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to undertake such actions and execute such documents as may be reasonably necessary or convenient to the carrying out and administration of the actions authorized by this Ordinance. SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause; phrase or word of this Ordinance is for any reason heid to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. SECTION 6. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Page 2 of 3 SECTION 7. The City Clerk is directed to publish this Ordinance in the manner anti in the time required by law, and this Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after adoption. SECTION 8. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to file a Notice of Exemption with, the County of San Bernardino Clerk's Office pursuant to CECLA: Guidelines Section 15062 within five (5) working days of the adoption of this Ordinance. Introduced at a regular meetino of the San JacintoCity Council on the 20th day of June. 2006. APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the San Jacinto Oty Counejl on this ard day of August. 2006 by the following vote: Ayes: Absent: Abctain: City of San Jacinto By Dale Stubblefield, Mayor CERTIFICATE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF SAN JACiNTO ) I, Dorothy L. Chouinard, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Ordinance No. 06-20 introduced at a regular meeting held July 20, 2006 and duly adopted by the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California at a regular meeting thereof held the 3rd day of August, 2006. WITNESS my hand and official seal of the City of San Jacinto this day of , 2006. Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Clerk Page 3 cf3 AGENDA ITEM 6 August 03, 200E TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Steven G. Pasarow, Redevelopment Operations Manager SUBJECT: Estudillo Mansion Advisory Committee Vacancies and Su Recommendation to Make Appointments RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council review and appoint two new members to the Estudillo Mansion Advisory Committee to the two, seats currently available with terms expiring on July 31, 2010. The Council's Historic Preservation interview committee will make its recommendations for appointment to the City Council: however, the Council may discuss and consider other candidates if desired. DISCUSSION: There are currently two vacant seats on the Estudillo Mansion Advisory Committee due to the expiration of the terms for Rebecca Schlosser and Betty Jo Dunham, which expire at the end of July, 2006. According to Resolution 2305, which established the Estudillo Mansion Advisory Committee in 1998, members shall serve staggered four year terms of office and vacancies shall be filled by appointment by the City Council. As stated above, two terms will expire at the end of July, 2006. The City Clerk advertised for applicants in the Press Enterprise on May 21 and 31 and June 4, 14 and 18 and in the Valley Chronicle on May 19 and 26 and June 2, 9 and 16. This advertisement produced a list of 9 applicants who were contacted to schedule interviews with the Historic Preservation Committee. These interviews were conducted in early July by Vice Mayor Shaw and Councilman Ritchie. The proposed appointments will be for the two terms expiring July 31, 2010. Page 1 of 2 The committee will provide its 'recommendations to the amity :ouncii fcr appointment to the Estudiilo Mansion Advisory Committee at the August 3, 2OO meeting. The new rnernbers wiii take their seats at the September 5,2; s6 regular meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: None ALTERNATIVES: 1. Appoint the two recommended candidates to he Es; Committee, 2, Appoint other candidates. 3, Direct staff to re -advertise for the current vraca?cies. ATTACHMENTS: ► Copies of Applications for the 9 car dilates Marrskk" 'Page 2 ;., lt T1 17 c.> p 1C) )) ./) C.) 1.1 1 0 0 0 Li0 0 -< U c 7xi .rtir 7 L 7 r 12 .7D:.7. p111,10) eid (,) 1. L i.pr1S] 1).stud lo Mow. ion Conn) I. (c (/) tLJ 'L ))). ' LL.L. v) `‘k II I MIL I ()(1 1.0111111 I (I) 0 0 0 (II 01 tt) 0 4-- CL", 0 -4 —0 (.2) 0 „ (‘, Q. <AS uJ < z 0 <lc CA) i j. „ L) rtitlid I I lo Mansion Comm %, p;it f)'•,=.:.1,-,. ) (4 (1) CD tn 0 0 7 () 0 C ) ky (.0 C. [s(:.u.!ii o Mior) Comiwi *,) 0 0 0 C: C. c.' o 0 o t7: •+ (13 0 0 C,D=. 0 0 1 L 1 '4 I Lil (1) 1 1 1 1.11 \;. <7: N. 4;1 e' r74/ 22 4-2 172 • 4,-- A\ ;74 V ..-----, : , ".--7—, 1 A k. -;, , '- •7;*-----;-; ;,-,--`-r• .., - Znetr.j74, NAV A n • t.2 A, 4 ,—,— - — g ; A-4. ;;;''7" r; gA-If " A.A.., --"" 1 4 A ; ,. , ; •,........., ,,„_...,;_,.A.. ; ; ---. --." ,-,r1 .._--- 7--:, ,:t4; g k.....,;) -,L.,',.L.'").---1 ,„..,...-K-.._."—`' 4' -A = I '.„....." q '--. ,...,+';,./-7 ,: ., .„...-..•....- • ,t--- • ; •"—, • k L Pri ;LA' At' r, ; - _ s 11 (Mo i (1) ET: 111 0 Q. (0) 0 _ - (iJ 0 „4-A "3 ( 3 0 („) (1) 7 I 9 c eat on for Appoint e o Committee Introduction My n me is _�- server corn -nu +t - as a me_ezr.3e _ TvfahRior €;,.`01777 `e^ Y the city of San Jacinto,?_<`wSar rutto ^ei- V also a property owner r•L the make to make ita better -placeto n, . i¢us r ain y as a residential desi er. Education i; suppo aycomnou J.no '..-zse Nanh to learn ,ar. mtectu ai drat - sa,cl.^te`i . ""`v. o`s'R�_ bus' ess a:s s`.t. esir % ,. sr"' - became, oe vZ he _.,._. licensed rear estate age___ __ _990. Real Estate from Riverside Co= Leters d Sy Ce4 Work ast< o s 1.7, Riverside at 9781993,- _ .et®need ° 4r art rn 'F Cdr^pute: '8TF' ✓er5,1� ,T Pu"� z 9q4' to complete my CG�.AC�..�.,�or. A ivC?'MS�. �� ,v_m ..•vTMc.�. c.._. �,,, _..,.. �,.��w>d S e the uni er� � � hie on scholarship to heb sup ort ii. y� ' -^, ° rt '�+CleF1C at� �P , J - - graduation T continuedfor the Un2vb"s" 1.e.,.,+aar., as a Graduate Student Counselor I retired —C %university1 200 S ?r" ....te51T 'itl 3—i ig J:s it private cot_suica FamEy `^t a home Hemet into '. June / 02, her San , , "b�rit43, CA 9.4583 7e "_ 11,7� o. 1 o ion 1.).flwri (,) j• • (/) ;5T (/) • Li I tjj c o z r• S., • ,„. „ kr s. y. r.. A ( 't v AGENDA REGULAR MEETING of the SAN JACINTO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of the CITY OF SAN JACINTO AUGUST 3, 2006 immediately Following the Regular City Council Meeting San Jacinto Unified School District Board Room 2045 South San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto, California ORGANIZATION Callao Order 1.2 Roll Call 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS Now is the time for the public to address the Agency on any. subject not listed on the agenda. Any person may address. the Agency on. any subject pertaining to RedevelopmentAgency business not . listed on the Agenda during this portion of the Meeting: A limitationof three(3)minutes shall be set for ,each person desiring to address the Agency Directors. CONSENT CALENDAR The matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion by Agency Members in the form listed. There will be no separate discussion on these items prior to the motion unless members of the Redevelopment Agency, staff or the public requests a specified item be removed andlor discussed. If an item is pulled, it will be heard at the end of number 5. Staff Reports.' July 20, 2006 Regular RDA Minutes / Approve / Agency Secretary Resolution No. -/A Resolution of RDA amending and adopting the Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. (PUB: Resources Code Sec, 21000et. seq.) / Approve and Adopt / Assistant City Manager At the end of the scheduled City Department items, anyone wishing to discuss a consent calendar should come forward upon invitation of the Chairman; state their name, address, and the consent-` Redevelopment Agency Agenda August 3, 2006 Page2of2 calendar item number pulled. Speakers should limit comments to three (3) minutes. CHAIRPERSON / MEMBER REPORTS f DISCUSSIONS OPEN SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH REALPROPERTY NEGOTIATO Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: Assessor Parcel Nos. APNs 439-11.0-096; 439-110-032; 439-110--03 1 ; 439-110-025 Agency negotiator: Executive Director and City Atto Negotiating parties: Lucia. Development' LLC' Under negotiation, Price and Terms CONFERENCE W!TH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: Assessor Parcel Nos. APNs 439-110-096; 439-110-03 439-1 1 0--031; 439-110-025 Agency negotiator: Executive Director and Representative from City Attorney's Office Negotiating parties: Sharon Desgro, Executive Director, Habitat for Humanity Hemet/San Jacinto Under negotiation: Price and Terms It is the intention, of the City of San. Jacinto to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects: If, as an attendee or a participant at this meeting, or in meetings on a regular basis, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, the City will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact City Hall at (951) 537- 6358, at least 48-hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible. If you challenge any action of the Redevelopment Agency Board in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or. in written correspondence delivered to the Redevelopment Agency (c/o Redevelopment Secretary) at, or prior to, the public hearing. Redevelopment Agency Agenda August9, 2l)pp Page,3 ot2 I, Dorothy L. Chouinard, Secretary of the San 5acinto R,ede eCopment)gency, do fiere5y cerii j that I cai be post fthforegorng agenda the28' dayof7uFy, 2©06,asrequired by,Crizr rd.igenj Secre KGROO espiutaon dopting',tl ending an he<;California eSeci00 uideiines Add�tionall , also Ind sped ficai Y forthe .Cif cruces to e;,Redevelopri�sent -Agency gust:, revise',it ':i ci i :guidelines for. rrtpiementln QA to make,theiri:consistent with thecurrent`prcvisions'-end-Irate pretations:o n'ttle ,eventwthe, gency: Board elects n aoard_s'hould set:the matterfor,'further efine specific provisions:to rrreetthe A one onticipafeci T'PACHNIENTS: esoiutiori ;'y.. ity Attorney i eaten enc l )li .:.CEQA C-uidelines,.. the Acepsy ernatives or STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) RDA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (PUB. RESOURCES CODE SEC. 21000 ET SEQ.) WHEREAS, the California Legislature has amended the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regs, title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) and the courts have interpreted specific provisions of CEQA; and WHEREAS, Section 21082 of CEQA requires ail public agencies to adopt objectives, criteria and procedures for the evaluation of public and private projects undertaken or approved by such public agencies, and the preparation, if required, of environmental impact reports and negative declarations in connection with that evaluation; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Sacs Jacinto ("Agency") must revise its local guidelines for implementing CEQA to make them consistent with the current provisions and interpretations of CEQA; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED determined and ordered by the Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of San Jacinto: SECTION 1. The Agency Board adopts "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (2006 Revision)," a copy of which is on file at the offices of the Agency Secretary and is available for inspection by the public. SECTION 2. All prior actions of the Agency enacting earlier guidelines are hereby repealed. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption. Page 1 of 2 APPROVED and ADOPTED, this 3rd day of August, 2006, by the following vote Ayes: Nays: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: Dorothy Chouinard, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: BEST, BEST & KRIEGER LLP City Attorney City of San Jacinto by Dale Stubblefield, Chair San Jacinto Redevelopment Agency Page 2 of 2 BEST BEST & KREGER LLP CALIFORNIA 1-114/TED iJABILITY PARTPiERSHIF INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS IND(AN WELLS.LAWYERS SACRAMENTO (750) 56e-ae 3750, UNIVERSITY AVENUE (6> 325-400C POST OFFICE BOX I OEE IRVINE RIVERSIDE, r IFORN)A 6E502- C EC SAN DIEGO (949) 263-2000 (951) 686-145C (e19) 52.5- I 30C (BE I ) esee-3083 FAX ONTARIC BBKLAW.COM WALNUT CREEK (909) 989-8554 (925: 977-D300 JEFF S. BALLINGER (951) 826-8219 JEFF. BALL/ NGER SEKLAW CCM July 2i , 2006 Barry TvicCleilan Executive Director San Jacinto Redeveioriment A2ency 248 E. Main Street San Jacinto, CA 92583 Re: Year 2006 Update to Local Guidelines for hnplementing the California Environmental Quality Act Dear Barry: We are pleased to enclose the Update to your Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act ("Local Guidelines"). We are enclosing a memorandum summarizing recent changes to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and changes to your Local Guidelines, along with a memorandum regarding 2005 CEQA Legislation. We are providing a complete reproduction of your Guidelines, rather than replacement pages, binder spines and covers. We are also providing two CDs containing the Guidelines, Staff Summary and CEQA forms, should you wish to produce additional copies of your Local Guidelines. We encourage you to put a copy of these documents on your agency's system for easy access by your staff, especially with regard to forms. You should keep the CDs as a back up. Also included is a suggested draft resolution that should be used to adopt the Guidelines. Please contact me if you have any questions about the Guidelines or the accompanying materials. Sincerely, /.) Jeff S. Ballinger for BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Enclosures RVPLIBUBALLINGER\712358.1 MEMORANDUM To: Project 5 ?a:ticipants FROM: Best Best & Krieger LLP RE: 2005 CEQA Legislation CLIENT -MATTER No.: 93939,00005 in 2005, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed only two bills relating to CEQ, 11 1 to. bills havebeen ac_ d in 4,. of the other CEQA hills failed �,. pass. The two i :hat _.�.:,e to law are - briefly summarized below. Assembly Bill 1170 CAB 1170) provides a specific, narrow exemption from CEQA fo se_sr!'iic retrofit work and joint use agreements undertaken by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. The 1 m " fi _ BART �T - so no impact of this law is i__i�.�.� to certainspecified �'.^S �d i..C..i.i�J, .a revisions to ....... Local Guidelines are necessary. Senate Bill 648 („SB 648) ,"w.'t 648 changes the way the eview period is calculated for documents hat ne submitted to the State Clearinghouse. SB 648 specifies that the state review period begins when the State Clearinghouse distributes the document to state agencies, not when ebe State Clearinghouse receives the documents. SB 648 further provides that the public review period can run concurrently with the state agency review period, but the public review period cannot end before the state agency review period does. Thus, for all practical purposes, the public review period for documents that are submitted to the State Clearinghouse for state agency review has been extended for as long as the state review period. Because the State Clearinghouse has three days after receipt to distribute the documents, it would be prudent to calculate the public review period as beginning three business days after the State Clearinghouse receives the documents and ending either 30 days (for negative declarations) or 45 days (for EIRs) later. sn the wake of the Trinity River restoration program debate over which agency should assume the lead agency role for CEQA review, SB 648 also covers the topic of lead agency disputes. SB 648 provides that, for purposes of those provisions requiring the designation by the Office. of Planning and Research of a lead agency, a "dispute" means a contested, active difference of opinion between two or more public agencies as to which of those agencies shall prepare any necessary environmental document, and that a dispute exists where a public agency claims that it either has or does not have the obligation to prepare an environmental document. SE 648 prohibits OPR from designating a lead agency in the absence of such a dispute. SB 648 has been codified in amendments to Section 21091 and Section 21165 of the Public Resources Code, Sections 6.06 and 7.02 of your Local Guidelines has been revised to reflect changes in the calculation or public review periods for documents that arc circulated SACRAMENTai B UC KMAN\2_93 ; 2.1 through the State Clear nghouse. Section 7.02 of your Local Guidelines has been _ ise LeIeCt the new S,»lutCryaz-'.iCge relating !o Se'.Eagency disputes. SACRAMENTOUBLTC KMAN\2931'_.1 To: Project 5 Par`,cipa FROM: RE: Best Best & Krieger LLP 2005 )6 Cl~:'A Cases EMoRA. NDU_IN CLIENT -MATTER NO.: 939 9.0,0005 In the past year, the courts published shed more than 20 new CEQABecauser' cases. tt_al courts are expected to follow the rules announced .n each of these published decisions, the cases are briery summarized below, WATER SUPPLY Again in 2005, water supply was one of the most frequently litigated aspects of environmental documents,and againthe decisions resulted in cni�eu bag for lea` agencies. the one hand, Sierra Club v. the West Side irrigation District upheld the lead agency's determination that a water transfer to supply the level of growth approved in a city's genet was not growth -inducing. On the other hand, in the case challenging the ER for a statewide water project, the same Court of Appeal found an EIR defective for failing to analyze an alternative that reduced anticipated population growth th in Southern California below the levels in eth approved regional growth forecasts. This latter case G been taken up by the Ca°iT _ ea iipreme Court.. The two cases concerning ing in'ater supplies for development projects also yielded Split results. Ln California Oak Foundation v. City Of Santa Clari a, the court overturned the BR. because the water supply analysis was based on a prospective water source, and the court felt the ER needed to include additional analysis of the likelihood of water deficit and alternative sources of supply. Ln contrast, Vineyard Citizens for Responsible Growth i?. City of Rancho Cordova upheld an EIR in which the water supply for a proposed development project was prospective. Relying on the agency's specific, identified plans for obtaining additional water, Vineyard explicitly approved the lead agency's combination of conditions restricting future development to the then -available water supplies. Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court has also decided to hear the Vineyard case, so lead agencies cannot rely on it at this time. We hope that we will have better guidance from the California Supreme Court on these complex water supply issues in the next few months. Sierra Club v. the West Side Irrigation District 128 Cal. App. 4th 690 (2005) The Third District Court of Appeal recently upheld a negative declaration adopted by West Side Irrigation District and the Banta-Carbona irrigation District to analyze the environmental_ impacts of transfers of portions of the district's Central Valley Project water entitlement to the City of Tracy. The negative declaration was deemed adequate because the City's prior ER for its General Plan provided adequate analysis for any potential environmental impacts associated with the City's growth and increased water demand. No new EIR was required. S ACRAMENTO'JBUCKMAM2859 D. The Central Valley Project iS a network of federally owned and operated canals, channels, and reservoirs which delivers water throughout California for, agricultural, nnirc_pa_ n and industrial users. The City has an annual right to 10,000 acre-feet of Centrali�'.Ci water and can sa pump y pup 6,000 acre-feet of groundwater. The City's General Plan prcposeC policies and goals forexpansion . :`e C-_:.. Ga file a 45�r r ,. ti _!�'. Although the City's current water supplies were adequate, the planned growth -, ould require the acquisition of additional water. The General Plan included a policy requiring the City to reduce reliance on groundwater and instead find surface water sources to meet future needs. The City certified. an EI. which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the. General Plan, including impacts associated with the City's growth and increased reliance on surface water sources. __n 20 i1 , ..he City negotiated agreements with two water districts .,tovidi .g ,o the districts to _ansfer some of their l Valley r Project water r ;ram , Central t'a_1e; disc ,�'a: t to the C_�. The L�stxlcts negative declarations for these proposed transfers, Sierra Club challenged the transfers, claiming that the districts should have prepared a joint EIIR. Among other things, Sierra Club argued that the approval of the transfer violated CEQA by: (1) impermissibly "segmenting" a single transfer project into two parts, (2) failing to address the cumulative impacts of the transfers, and (-) -Failing to consider the environmental impacts that would result from water cutbacks during drought years. First, the court rejected Sierra Club's argument that both transfers should have been analyzed in one environmental documentWhen two activities are parts of one larger undertaking or when a second activity is a reasonably foreseeable result of an earlier activity, CEQA requires that both activities be analyzed as a single project. Although similar, the transfers were separate projects which could proceed independently. Therefore, it was proper for the read agency to conduct separate environmental reviews. The court next considered Sierra Club's argument that the districts failed to consider the cumulative ulative and growth -inducing impacts of the water transfers on the region's hydrology and growth. The districts analyzed cumulative impacts and identified nearby foreseeable projects but ultimately concluded that the cumulative impacts did not exceed those already analyzed in the City's General Plan EIR. The court agreed. finding that the districts' cumulative impacts analyses were sufficient. With regard to growth -inducing impacts, Sierra Club argued that the water transfers would cause growth that was not accounted for in the City's General Plan ELK and that the use of transferred water was not restricted to areas covered by the EIR. The court rejected these arguments again, finding that the growth -inducing impacts did not exceed those analyzed in the General Plan. FIR and that the "initial study clearly stated] [that] the water was to be assigned only to those areas already subject to the City's general plan." Finakly, the court rejected Sierra Club's argument that the districts did not adequately consider the impacts of water cutbacks during drought years. The court found that the districts' iltial studies directly addressed this issue by analyzing the potential environmental impacts That BHCRAMENTOUBUC:QMANi2859U.1 would occur from a 40% Cut in water cei:veries during drought years. The court found that the districts were riot lecuire6.to analyze a greater {reduction because it was speculative to assume treat future droughts would result in water supply reductions greater than 40%. Sierra Club is notable because it is first case ex he extent a water transfer is intended to serve a level ..f ro v _l in an approved and adopted General Plan, the water transfer is not itself ` owt inducing. =ri contrast, a water transfer effected to supply growth projections that have not been approved in an adopted General Plan may he grow, and the growth -inducing impacts of that increase in water supply should be analyzed p_ -� the environmental document. See County ofAmt-iclor v. El Dorado County i'Vaee7 r kenc17 6 Cal. App. 4th 931, 949 ( 999) C .ti% of Antioch 1% ` rr` CoCouncil, 187 C 4 pp. 2d 2- (1986) ("making ... additional water available for consumptive 2ptive purposes removes a major barrier to growth and can virnaally ensure develonment,"). In re Bay -Delta Programmatic Environmental on.rnen.tall Impact Report COW' dii wted Proceedings, 133 Cal. App. 4th 154 (2005), review granted The California Supreme 1. ot4ri has granted review of two combined cases r`St considered the ELF prepared for the Bay-Delta/CALKED water program. While the appellate court decision has no binding effect on trial courts at this time, it is noteworthy to identify the issues than may be considered in the Supreme Court's for -them -ling decision. C GLI-..ED is a combined effort by multiple iple state and federal agencies to provide a long- term, comprehensive program for water management in California. The program seeks to improve water duality, provide more reliable supplies for water users, and provide additional floc's for fish and 'wildlife purposes. The biggest challenge the CALFED program has faced is a conflict between its various s goals. the vast majority of California's reliable vater rights are already being put to beneficial use, and, generally speaking, it is not possible to increase streamflows ibr water duality or fish and wildlife purposes without taking water away from existing uses. Opponents of CALFED raised numerous CEQA and non-CEQA arguments in their attempt to invalidate the project, and the Court of Appeals' decision was extremely lengthy. I3ssenTiany, though, the court rejected all of the non-CEQA arguments and most of the CEQA claims but found tree faults that rendered the programmatic EIS/ER fatally deficient. First, the court found that the EIS/EIR should have included and analyzed an alternative calling for reduced water exports from the Bay -Delta region. The court speculated that restricting water availability as in this alternative might discourage growth in Southern California and thus reduce the need for development of additional water supplies. Second, the court found that the EIS/EIR did not adequately analyze the potential sources of water that would be reallocated to provide the program's fish and wildlife and water quality Bows. Third, because the EIS/Ea failed to disclose the potential water sources, the court found that the EIS/EIR did not adequately disclose or analyze the terms of the Environmental Water Account or the potential environmental impacts that its implementation _lentation may cause. It is difficult to predict which of the many issues covered in the CALF.ED opinion will. be taken up by the California Supreme Court. However, the court's ending that the agencies were SACRAMENT O\ BliCKMVi/Ni,2t590.1 required to consider a reduced Delta exports alternative seems highly questionable Ueca se that alternative would be legally, economically, and sociallti; -=_feasible. Water is appropriated rom the Delta pursuant to permits issued by the State Water Rights Board (now known as the State Water Resources Contra Board). CALFED cannot curtail those diversions without "tailing" these existing, beneficially used water rights, and the federal and state Constitutions would require compensation for such a taking of property. Condemning these rights wou I'd probably be prohibitively expensive. It would also be politically infeasible. as these rights provide the municipal supplies for about 2/3 of California's population. Therefore, the court's holding that the CALI-ED agencies were required to consider and analyze such an alternative is dubious. Regarding the potential sources of water to be reallocated to sup CALFED ED program, it is not clear how the Supreme Court will view this issue. Before the Court of Appeals, the State argued that a detaied analysis of CALI't,i1's potential water sources was premature because thepurpose. of a programmatic EISr l� is to provide an environmental r len Cas overview erviein of subsequent projects, with project -specific environmental review 0c.c0rr ng at a later date. The State also argued that CALI-1D was intended to cover a thi Ev year period, such that it would be speculative to include detailed information about the potential water sources that could be obtained to f`a rill the project's purposes. The court, however, wever, found that the central purpose Of CALFED is to manage a large portion of theState's water a =i g V e c* -�^f and to meet anticipated future demands. The court hold that failing to consider the potential sources of those water supplies was a failure to analyze the central purpose behind the EIS; Ern and a violation of CEQ'A's p blic disclosure and environmental analysis requirements. The petitioners in the CALFED CEQA litigation raised numerous odrer issues, any one of h the Supreme Court may take up in its review. Hopefully, though, the Supreme Court decision will also reso,',.%e these important questions concerning the extent to whi.,_"i a water supply agency must second-guess other agencies' approved growth estimates and the depth and breadth of the analysis of the water transfers needed to accomplish the p ograri's aims. California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita, 133 Cal. App. 4th 1219(2005) Cal fornia Oak Fauna is the most recent CEQA appellate decision in the string of cases that have considered the development approvals associated with Newhall Ranch in Santa Clarita valley. Like its predecessors, this case also found the environmental analysis for the proposed development to he fatally flawed, Specifically, the court held that when an EIR relies upon a prospective water source to support long-term development, the EIR must contain a detailed analysis regarding both the likelihood of water deficit for the project and alternative sources of supply. In addition, the court strongly indicated that the EIR must include its discussion, of water supply availability in the main text of the document, as opposed to the appendices. The project at issue in this case was the proposed Cate -King Industrial Park. To supply the project's hotel needs, the project intended to rely on the Castaic Lake Water Agency's (Castaic) entitlement to 4.1,000 acre-feet per year of State Water Project water. Castaic had purchased this entitlement from Kern County Water Agency but subsequent court decisions struck down the EIRs that analyzed the proposed transfer. The court did not enjoin Castaic's use 4 S-SCR. ✓ENTOUBUCi:ldrN`2s59D.1 of the water source, r,ut t_ie 1 uncertain. ii the ava labiidtlr o+ the 41,003 AFY is The Gate -King Ea ack:Cvr'iedge t .hat "ongoing legal challenges" could limit the source of supply. Further, Appendix K of the EIR stated that if the 41,000 '!;Y continued to be available; eater supplies "appeal- to be s:.ffic_e_at, but if it were ro _ r __ 4b_e water supplies could be insufficient. To address that contingency, ,entilled. several a:iritionai sources of water supplies v7hich could be developed over tune, including water recycling, other water purchases, and desalination. The court found the Ea did not contain substantial evidence; to support a conclusion that sufficient c ur eCexisted for the project. L_ doing So, the court indicated. that only water L� iclent water sources that is "actually deliverable" should be relied upon for purposes of analyzing environmental impacts. The court also rioted that issues as important as water supply availability should be discussed in the body of the environmental document itself, as opposed to the appendix. Finally, the court found that, when the sufficiency' of water resources available to serve a project is uncertain, the F.Ea must contain facts and analysis wilier^ explain: (1) the likelihood of deficit in the future. and (2) what alternative sources of supply will cure the deficit. Alternative sources of supply must contain details and estimates concerning the amount of water each alternative might make available. Simply acknowledging a potential water deficiency and identifying general neu i, d sources, such as "desalination," is riot enough. Li t..uG.i7L.7G�u Vineyard Area Citizens For Responsible Growth Inc. v. City ofRancf€u Cordova, 127 Cat. App. 4th 490 (2005), review granted Although Vineyard was based on facts that are very Similar to Ca. cjo, ni,a Oak, the court reached in the op poste conclusion. lit 1',ne pallor, the come found that the read agency satisfied its CEQA. obligations by certifying an EIR that identified future water supplies and imposing conditions restricting the amount of development based on the available supplies. While Vineyard has been taken up by the California Supreme Court and no ionger constitutes reliable authority, environmental attorneys are hopeful that the Supreme Court will reaffirm the Vineyard cases holdings and disapprove contrary authorities such as California Oak. The project in Vine franc' involves the future development of 6,015 acres within the City of Rancho Cordova into residential and commercial uses, including approximately 22,500 dwelling units. Sacramento County analyzed the impacts of the proposed development in a Draft E 2, which was later revised and recirculated to include a new water supply plan. After several hearings, the County certified the Ems, over the objections of petitioner and others who presented a letter from ,, an expert geologist criticizing the EIR. Among other things, petitioner challenged: (1) the sufficiency of the project's water supply plan, and (2) the EIR's analysis of the environmental impacts from groundwater pumped to serve the project. As revised and recirculated, the. EIR identified a two phase approach to development of adequate water supplies to serve the project. In the first phase, water will be supplied by the North Vineyard Well Field ("NiWF"). This well field had been moved from the project site five miles south to distance the groundwater pumping from a plume of contamination underlying the neighho _n g Aeroiet property. The NVWF falls within the purview of the 1999 Water Foram sAcRAvtENa;ovauctaV. rvnss59n., Plan ("WF'P"), a massive, multi -jurisdictional water supply plan that limits the amount •:Lt of water that can be pumped from the IC F. In the second phase, water will be supplied by Sacramento County Water Agency's "Zone 40" plan. This plan, although not complete and presently undergoing environmental mental review, en___ enact fees from future development to pay for new water vd facilities. The RRDELR. rioted that Sacramento County Water Agency bad recently secured water supply contracts from the Bureau of Reclamation to supply back-up water to. both the NI-1-FP and. the Zone 40 programs. Another contract was Still being negotiated. These water s.r p contracts will n_ovide a surface water sys_em that can be used when local ` are inadequate. When the project , 'as approved. a condition was placed or development ..eu ^at adequate water supplies be available before each phase of building could proceed. On this basis, the court distinguished those cases where the environmental documents completely failed to identify potential sources of water for projects. Here, the RRDBIR did identify water sources, even if incomplete, and discussed a reasonable range of water supply scenarios. The court cited approvingly to IVapa Citizens for Honest GOVerrarcent V. Napa County Board of Supervisors. 91 Cal. App. 4th 342, 373 (2001)., "which suggests that an E? , is adequate if it identifies and analyzes potential sources of water even though the final availability of those sources is hot confirmed." Consequently, the court affirmed that the RRDE]R's analysis of the project's water" supply plans was adequate. Water suppliers throughout the state were pleased with the ie Court of sells t „_TaCc Cal Appeals decision in iinetard. It is hoped that the California Supreme Court will affirm the Court of Appeals' finding that a combination of conditions restricting housing development to available water supplies and specific plans for development of future water soources is sufficient for a projects water supply analysis to pass muster under CEQA. The Vineyard case has been fully briefed to the Supreme Court and is expected to be heard sorne time after April 12, 2006. IG BOX DEVELOPMENT AND U AN BLIGHT Since the decision in Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control V. City of Bakersfield, 124 Cal, App. 4th 1184 (2004), announced that lead agencies must study the "urban blight" impacts stemming from their approval of large retail projects such as Veal -Mart Supercenters, planners and environmental consultants have scrambled to determine how they can satisfy this new requirement. The Anderson First Coalition case provides the first published guidance on how much urban blight analysis is enough. Anderson upheld the City's urban blight analysis, which included an economic study showing the project would help the City capture sales tax revenues lost to neighboring towns, and documents showing that the City had created a redevelopment distict to assess blight impacts in the downtown area. However, Anderson invalidated the project's "fair -share" mitigation fee for cumulative traffic impacts because: (1) the fees had not been calculated correctly, (2) the fees covered only Phase I of the improvements, but should include the "remaining reasonable costs of the improvements," and (3) the language of the mitigation measure was "too vague" about the improvements to i, ,c s the fees were allocated. Id. at 1189. SFCRAME ToUBUCK]✓eI`28590.1 Anderson First Coalition City tf ofArid er oni. 1:_'�,�} Ca .. App, 4th i. F3 (20E 5: 1 i s case overruled a CEQA. ehienge to the City's apprc, al of a ,Q. Wnt3v'i_ retail project which included a i.7al-Mart store, three other retail pads and a gas station_ Plai`<`i`E alleged that the Etc impermissibly :railed to adequately analyze the projec s urban decay, tt a fic, and t tC and i h p was inconsistent ^:ti.hh City's gene 'an and hydrology impacts, that e project 5 �- _ thegeneral t_ plan zoning code, The trial court agreed that the Ea failed to adequately analyze the traffic and air quality impacts associated with the gas station but upheld the Ea and project approvals__ all other aspects, The City remedied the defect by severing he gas station, re-eelt e , and reapprovi be project without the gas station, On appeal, the court upheld this approach, The _record confirmed that the de icier.._es in t_le Ed.`s traffic and a_ i 'a slam' analysis related only tc the gas station's impacts, not to any other portion of the Project. Based on this, and the power `ren to courts to `a. for the CEQA remedy narrcv..'j`% o f_t the violation ;ire court approved the City's actions. court co isidered whether the City properly concluder.B t.nat the potential for and blight less than sib' %cart Econc__ is and social impacts of a proposed 'ue �C:_'1 decay were �.. project are outside CEQA's scope unless those impacts could result in a reasonably foreseeable environmental impact, In Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Cirt% of Bakersi eld, 124 Cal, App. 4th1184the courtfoundWal-Mart rot t ,2�JtJ4}; the City ofvalsers_teld's E>R for a i� a_-'�,a_t �: •ec. inadequate because it failed to consider the ` :rbar decay' impacts the operation of the Wai-Mart would have on other local businesses. For its project the City of Anderson pre tiar ed aP_ Eta that ConsidereC_ trio impact f the Wal-Mart center on other local businesses. Petitioner claimed tie EFR did not meet the. Bakersfleid standard because its analysis was inadequate. In reie..n_ this claim, the Anderson court relied on evidence in the record viz^tie: included: (l) an economic study showing the project would help the City capture sales tax revenues -lost to neighboring towns, and (2) documents showing that the City had created a redevelopment district to assess blight impacts rt the downtown area. There was conflicting evidence in the record, and other evidence tended to shoe' the potential for the project to contribute to urban decay and blight. However, because substantial evidence in the record supported the City's conclusion, the court was therefore compelled to uphold it. Petitioner also argued that the project would cause blight in other cities and. areas ^ot the court found this claim was too speculative to require analysis in the EIR. The second part of the Anderson.: First Coalition case is equally important because it deals N i.th comrnon themes related to mitigation of a project's cumulative traffic impacts on freeway interchanges. Unfortunately, the holding of this part of the case provides little clarification on this important topic, and, in fact, may further confuse the issues. As __litigation for increasing traffic. the ElR. required the project to contribute a fair share of the costs needed to upgrade the nearby Interstate-5 interchange. The Anderson. First Coalition petitioner contended that the City's traffic mitigation measures were invalid because they were speculative and unenforceable and because they should have been analyzed as part of the Wal- Mart project. The court approved the concept of adopting mitigation measures intended to address the traffic impacts from several projects but noted that the measures must be based on a SAC_,'u Er' T ou KuCKMAN\2E590.i "reasonable plan of actual ^'siigati at the relevant agency corm -nits itself to implementing." The court invalidated the projects _air -share" cumulative traffic mitigation fee because: fees had not been calculated correctly, (2) the fees covered only Phase 1, of the improvements should include the reinai ing rea.sona-ble costs of the improvements," and (3) the lariguage of the mitigation measure was "too vague" about the improvements to which the fees were allocated. :-.nder sc7: First Cot in -:On at 11R9 The courts first and second holdings are understandable, as they are based on: ( t obvious arithmetic error, and (2) apparent concerns that the interchange improvements would not be fully funded, and thus not fully mitigated, because the costs of construction rr g' c. e estimates, Unfortunately, the third holding — that. the mitigation measure was "vague regard "the program to provide {those; improvements" — is itself vague and difficult to grasp. The court recognized that "the City does not have total control over the improvements to the 1-5 interchange; has important part rii V First Coalition, at 1 9 - iterCCang ; CalTrans an '"�`ip i��ait to tray as v:%ell.'" Anderson Sri i75i: �: . However, staff reports stated that the City had been preparing, an update to the Traffic impact Fee Program to include the freeway interchange improvements.. Id. at 1188-89. There was "no serious dispute regarding the current cost estimates for the improvements to the 1-5 interchange,' and improvements were segmented into phases. Thus, the evidence in the record suggests there how when the necessary r mph ments would was substantial detailabout IE'i �'v and tie 'a } freeway improvements e .,. y_. 0.�ociiu be completed. The courts concern about the "vagueness" of the mitigation measure is not imme 'fatei apparent. Perhaps the court meal t that the mitigation measure rectiired the completion of t_de update to the Traffic Impact Fee Program. Alternatively, the court may have been concerned about the City,s lack of control over the freeway iriterchanrge. The court could have felt that the City should have recognized the potential that the mitigation measure would fail because CalTrans has jurisdiction over the interchange and could delay or veto the proposed improvements. Unfortunately, the case provides little hint of the courts reasoning on this critical point. The court did reject petitioner's claim that the future 1-5 interchange improvements should have been analyzed as part of the development project. Because impacts jointly caused by several projects, such as traffic impacts, may be reduced through joint mitigation measures implemented at a later time, it was appropriate for the City to exclude the 1-5 interchange improvements from the project description, as long as the improvements themselves were subject to environmental review at a future date. Given. the lack of clarity in the Anderson First Coalition decision or cumulative traffic mitigation measures, it may be prudent for lead agencies to make findings of potential significant impacts and adopt statements of overriding considerations for development projects with potential impacts on freeway interchanges, even when the development project has been required to contribute fees to fund freeway interchange improvements. TRAFHC IMPACTS Like Anderson First Coalition, Endangered Habitats League, Inc, L. C✓; ty- of Orange, 131 Cal, 4t2 777 (200), also considered the efficacy of fees in i ittlga _:_g traffic impacts. .4mong other 8 SAACRAMEN TOTE 13 CKMAlN2s590.l things. Endcmgered Habitats Lague confirmed. that fees ar riot be deemed adee ate to mi iga.e traff c impacts when the fees are meant only to fund a study and the improvements to be s.;P,pG"te.€ �� r3e fees have not been specified. Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County o,`.Orange, 131 Cal. App. 4th ro �� { F e ,r.r. ist Court of lidated. cil .i,a for two residential �` t case, the. co.,,... � u'iCt c-a'3� a5 = �� development projects because: (1) the traffic analysis methodology conflicted with the Count}-'s GeneralPlan and the proper method of analysis showed E atraffic would exceed - t`ie General Plan permitted; (2) the biologicalbiologic:al impacts analysis failed to follow the mandatory thresholds of s59,_nttfiCatlCE and (3) nG+.SE tloii measures were improperly deferred. Regarding the County trc _ nc management policies of the Col.c GeneralPlan required thata traffic of service at "C better,as assessed under Highway Capacity :Manual ("HCM .) method, be maintained on Santiago Canyon Road, arg the HCM method, the level of service with the project's traffic was projected to fall to a `IDE", level by 2005 and an "E" level by 2020. For the EIR, the County performed a new analysis: using a different method of calculating a project's traffic impacts, the Volume/Capacity Ratio ("WC") method. Under the V/C method, the level of service with the project would be a both 2005 and 2020. in approving the project, the Counly's findings relied on the \%/C method to determine that the project's traffic impacts were less than significant, stating, "The V/C methodology is considered more representative of actual conditions . .. ro ect impacts to Santiago CanyonRoad, therefore, considered less than significant." a.:e.,a�u "_E.,a�, ill Ore, are i;v'. _ �.- The developer argued that the County did not really rely on the V/C method and all at happened was "clumsy wo cling of the Board's findings that mention the ViC method." The court angrily reiected this a_. lent as a "flat out" misrepresentation of the record. The developer then argued that required mitigation measures would reduce the projects. traffic impacts below a level of stt"rifica'!ce even under the HCM 'method. The mitigation measures required contributions to two separate road improvement programs for Santiago Canyon Road. However, the court faulted the mitigation for two reasons: (1) it was not clear from the EIR or the record that the mitigation measures would achieve an acceptable level of service measured under the li-1CM method, and (2) the mitigation measures were inadequate to rove that the project's traffic impacts would be reduced below a level of significance, since the fees would be applied to fund additional traffic studies and there was no evidence what improvements would be funded by the fees. Thus, the traffic analysis in the EIR demonstrated that the project was inconsistent with the General P]an's growth management policy requiring a level of service of "C" or better on Santiago Canyon Road. Notably, the court overturned the project approvals for violating the planning and zoning law mandating that development projects comply with the applicable General Plan, rather than for defects in the CEQA analysis per se. (This distinction is important because consistency with a General Plan generally is more difficult to remedy.) The court also found for petitioners on two other aspects of the environmental impacts a 3alysis, i iogicai resources and noise. The argument on the biological resources analysis turned on whether the EIR failed to evaluate all the mandatory topics regarding biological SACRAMENTO'JBUCKMAM'28590. ] resources. The ,s threshold of significance iiichided Iy those impacts that would make a species threatened or endangered or might re -duce ; ant or animal communities to br lov statewide or regional++self-perpetuating levels. This threshold resulted in incomplete analysis CEQA State 'i EQA Guidelines Section 15065 mandates that the lead agency also analyze. whether the project will have significant impacts which substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, threaten to eliminate fish Or wildlife; species, or reduce the plan"_Jvr or restricts the range of an endangered, rare; or threatened species. Because the Count; did not consider all of the topics required by Section 15065; its biological resources analysis was invalid. This holding serves as a good reminder to lead agencies to check to rnalie sure they are using current nt versions of the Guidelines (and any applicable municipal storm water permit terms, as the basis r C their Initial Study checklists; the BB K checklists prOvuP.. with these forms are updated each year to reflect the current text of the State Guidelines and other applicable regulatory requirements. Finally', petitioner cOrtended that the County `y impermissibly uefe re ,ltpoisef • and 10 other categories of impacts. The court rejected most of petitioners arguments bpi agreed that the Ea impermissibly deferred the analysis and mitigation of the protects noise impacts. The Ea required the developer, before obtaining a grading permit, to submit an acoustical analysis describing the "exterior noise environment" and "preliminary mitigation measures, if required." Before a building permit could be issued, the developer had to submit another acoustical report to demonstrate that structures had been designed to meet "exterior and ter or noise standards" satisfactory to the County. language is a Classic el ample of the improper deferral of analysis and xg • at1On. The Ea cannot satisfy its duty as a disclosure document :t if the analysis of the relevant impacts is not included in the E. Moreover, the County's mitigation for potential noise impacts required only the preparation of a report showing that noise was reduced to satisfactory levels, Thus, the County had impermissibly deferred analysis and mitigation of the proiects potential noise impacts. BASELINE The definition of the appropriate environmental baseline continues to be a hot topic in CEQA litigation. Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines sets forth the general rule that environmental conditions existing at the time environmental analysis is commenced "noilually constitute the baseline for purposes of detel.iuning whether an impact is significant, but the lead agency has discretion to establish a different baseline when it is appropriate. As these most recent cases indicate, the definition of the baseline is key to adequate environmental analysis because the impacts attributable to the project must be measured against existing conditions. For example, in County Sanitation Dist. No. 2, the baseline included application cf sewage sludge generated in Los Angeles to land in Kern County, so an ordinance restricting that application could have significant traffic impacts by causing sludge generators to have to *gavel greater distances to dispose of their waste. in Lighthouse Field Beach, the baseline included messy conditions resulting from droppings of unleashed dogs, but the court found that the city needed to analyze the impacts of implementing changing the parks official policy from leashing requirements to no -leashing sACRAMENTOuBUCKMANV t590,] County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los',4_.itgeies County v. Coiiii0y of 4th 1544 (2005) pp° case, the Court of Appeal for the it' -peilate District ruled that ,he Counte }, Kern was required to prepare an EuR. before adopting an ordinance that "restricted the amount and type of sewage sludge that can be applied .o ag_ricuLira_ fields. The cou`_ so' d that 1 lv �.�. G_t.+t. _:a the ordinance created the potential for environmental inapacts caused by alternative methods of sewage sludge disposal. Although the project would benefit the environment by reducing the amount of certain types of selvage sludge being applied to agricultural is ids the 7, tea. Would potentially impact the environment as coni:red to baseline re conditions because sewage rage ..�L would have to be transported furth or di.sposal and farmers vrould increase their use of chemical fertilizers. The treatment of human sanitary wastes results in sewage sludge, and, after further treatment,. iOs _% u. Sewage sludge and biosolids are classifiedieGaccording to Their level of treatment, such that "exceptional quality" itsy" biosolids contain less pollutants and other materials than Class B biosolids. In California, sewage sludge and biosolids can be store,".. hi ed, inc nerated, or applied to land as a fentili ;er. In 1998, approximately on rd of all biosolids applied to land in California were applied to the agricultural fields of Kern County. Many Kern County farmers relied on thas sewage sludge as an affordable and readily available source of fe • ti.izer The City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, Orange County, and the City of Fresno each eliminated much of their sewage sludge by shipping it to Kern County faGrtners. several years of stk. the County enacted an ordinance which fort t=ie application of ClassB biosolids after a_ uar-.. 1, 0 Land "exceptional 'land r+1 T % .7 t�. �..r.�, �.,_""i G. application of exCeptdc>Sa r unaffected. Petitioners n County's sthe CL, quality" �%>CSOb 5 ica .a.i;ed ti ;affe tail. 1`et .gone. challenged the `�"1�vvn adoption o= ordinance udder CEQA and a variety of other grounds. The County argued that the ordinance was effective only in Kern County and only the impacts to Kern County land subject to the ordinance should be considered for CEQA purposes. Because the overall effect of the ordinance would produce environmental benefits to Kern County, the County argued that the ordinance bad no significant environmental impacts and no EIR was required. The court agreed that the ordinance could have a beneficial. effect on Kern County's environment, however, the court found that the County had inappropriately restricted its environmental analysis to Kern County, instead, the County should have evaluated whatever physical conditions will be affected by the proposed project, regardless of their locations. Specifically, the court found that the County could reasonably foresee that its adoption of the ordinance would cause environmental impacts because sewage sludge generators find alternative disposal methods for sludge, such as: CO trucking the sludge further distances for disposal, (ii) disposing of the sludge in a landfill, or (iii) treating the sludge to "exceptional quality" such that it could be spread on Kern County lands. Each of these alternatives included the potential for creating environmental impacts such as additional a_ pollution, loss of landfill capacity, and increased consumption of energy and other resources. 11 SACnAMBN"oliBUCKMAN28901 Further, it was reasonably 'foreseeable that Kern County a1 .�mers would react to the or inarnce by using alternative fertilizers, such as ari_aal manure and chemical fertilizers. The court found that using substitute nCrt �«ers had potential environmental impactssuch as i_:Ie_sed air pollution, water pollution, and inax.' is tG soil quality. The County argued Mai, the _he actual reactions of sludge generators and f=e_v were unknown, but the court rejected this argument,finding that the County could reasonably anticipate the reaction to its ordinance and therefore should have analyzed the effects of `'at reaction. The court allowed the ordinance to remain in effect but , srecteb the County to completethe 1.R ingood faith. This case confirmed that an ELR. may be required to analyze poteil ai y si i environmental impacts, even where the p C(cci s overall impact is 9._c _.c _Lhet, case clarified that CEQA review must evaluate the environmental impacts of the proect, 4hri_se'e'+'e" they manifest, regc_CileSS5 of the distance from the p,IOjCCt'S actual 1GCat'Gn. These two brine`ptE are supported by established CEQA caselaw, and both appear sound. The court's reasoning on the County's duty to analyze these parties dispcsai of sewage sludge seems a bit more dubious. Although the County's adoption of the or a'nsa nCe was intended to address the issues associated with sewage sludge disposal, the County did not create any of the sewage sludge and has no ability to control its disposal. It seems more appropriate for the entity disposing of the sludge, rather than the entity receiving it, to analyze the environmental impacts associated with its disposal. Indeed, this case directly conflicts with tiie Fifth District's prior in of Kings, 1 F ` r an Ea x ��f decision Magan v. County �' ��.., 105 a_. App. 4th ,68 .,2G`�2}. In 1✓`a�'�e.�. the plaintiff argued that at Ell ordinance Kings County '=j% adopted to restrict the at „ tabor of sewage sludge had potential emiircrtmertal impacts because it would shift the triad of sewage sludge application t y Id. / 77 However, C toCounty's �^, other jurisdictions in California..at-ri ; . �o'�+ yeti the tfe�v7'i court upheld the (�`in,:..,_t), S reliance on a categorical exemption, finding that the plaintiffs arguments did not present substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact. "[Appe1lant's_ speculation about future actions by the sewage sludge producing entities is outside the scope of the ordinance and, in any event, such speculative concerns are too vague and imprecise for any meaningful environmental assessment " Id. It does not appear to be possible to reconcile the courts' holdings in these cases. Of the two cases. Magaa appears to be the better -reasoned, and it enjoys the advantage of being consistent with the Supreme Cou is recent pronouncement that the Coastal Commission need not examine the impacts of projects outside its jurisdictional area because the agency has no authority ever those projects. See Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission, 35 Cal. 4th 839 (2005), discussed below. Given the unclear state of the law in this area, though, agencies considering ordinances such as this may want to take a conservative approach and undertake more extensive environmental review to ensure that their CEQA documents can withstand any subsequent legal challenge. Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz, 131 Cal. App. 4th 1170 (2005) Lighthouse Field revisits the issue of bow the lead agency should define the baseline when faced with existing physical conditions that are arguably illegal. Lighthouse Field also has SACRAIviEN'T:'JBUCKMA7 \2E59[1.' the distinction of having the strap est fact pattern of any of the 203.5 CEQA cases: tie baseline at issue is the amount of dug droppings on a public beach in Santa Cruz that has been ()pen to off -leash dogs. The Sixth Appellate District overturned the C y' of Santa Cruz apr:i'Cval of a General have r Plan revision for the beach which Cl"F would forbidden the . use of Ee_isit vE areas but allowed owners to unleash their bogs The court concluded that the City's negative declaration relied on an incorrect baseline in analyzing the potential environmental impacts. associated with allowing unleashed dogs to use the beach Thus, even though there was no substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that a significant en tomne_ tat impact would result, the court overturned the City's proposed General Plan revision. The beach at issue. s a designated state beach whichiS ' t d r the control of the State Department of Parks and Recrea` on but is locally administered by the City pursuant to contractual operating agreements The 19�7 operating agreement between the Department of Parks and Recreation and the City provided that rules and regulations adopted by the City for the beach "Shall conform to and be consistent With the rules and regulations adopted by [the Fate] and generally applicable to the State Park System..." in 1984, the City- adopted a General Plan which required that all pets on the beach be restrained to leashes. Despite this restriction, n, in 1993 the City permitted dogs to be off -leash during certain hours with the hope that doe owners ners would cooperate with lawenforcement personnel in a way that might allow the further reiiaxatior of the leash restrictions. A subsequent memo from the City's Park and Recreation Dena : tment acknowledged that dogs were frequently seen off -leash during- impermissible times, net Waste receptacles ee ✓La4.ies were sv ;e"E`li vandalized. and the beach was l_ttered with pet droppings. Beginning in 2002, the City considered amending its General Plan for the beach to mate the leash requirement, Before the City acted, the District Superintendent for the State Department of Parks and Recreation issued an order that: (I) authorized off -leash dog use of the beach park from sunrise to 10:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to sunset and (2) allowed leashed dogs in the park at all other times but (3) prohibited dogs from one portion of the beach. The City's draft amendment tO its Genera, Plan proposed to continue to allow off -leash dog use in certain areas. On the recommendation of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the language in the General Plan was changed to read: "California Department of Parks and Recreation policies on Dogs in State Parks will be utiEZed to determine dog use at Lighthouse [=Held [Sjtate Beach." The proposed negative declaration for the General Plan amendment was then circulated for public review. The City received many letters criticizing the proposed amendment on grounds that unleashed dogs had severely degraded the quality and enjoyment of the beach. `i The California Coastal Corm.ission noted "the most controversial and publicly discussed aspect of the Plan [isl whether to continue to allow dogs at Lighthouse Field State Beach.' Because of the controversy surrounding the unleashed dog policy, the City and the State Department of Parks and Recreation each announced that any dog issues would be addressed at a future time. The City's planmdg comrnission expressed concerns as to the adequacy of the negative a declaration and voted not' to recommend adoption of the negative declarationor approval of the 1J 1 S.ACRAME O'.JBUCX<_'✓AN'28590.] General Plan amendment. The City Council rejected the Planning Con -missions recornmenclation, finding that unleashed dogs were currently allowed on the beach by the Department of Parks and Recreation and the City's 1993 policy and the amendment would not Thane the existing environmental nmenta_. baseline. On appeal,petitioner alleged that the Cit J s description or the col _ron rental setting .� inadequate because it did not give e a detailed account of the damage ".tdogscausedthe E that have to beach. The court rejected this argument, holding that the negative declaration adequately describerInc site's Conditions, ex astmg facilities, recreational and ` aCh- iES. and reCFeationa, uses by 'both people dogs. However. the court fou id tha the City failed to adequately ana'_i7ze the impact of unleashed dogs on the environment. The Cityarguedthat `i would beim pact, �_ at_here no and hence it no need for a discussion, because the project did nothing to change the existing off leash dog use of the beach. The court agreed that the correct baseline by which to judge the amendment's potential impacts was the current condition of the beach, including the current levels of off -leash dog usage. However, the Court found that the project eliminated the General Plan's prohibition. of off -leash dog use at the Beach. i,'i the court's 4'iew, this constituted a change lflat had the potential to alter the intensity and pattern of off -leash dog ::sage. The court seemed to be concerned that the City's 1993 off -leash policy was or improper. <:,dismissed the _ illegal_ �._ The court ds sx�a�sed fact that the City was required to operate the beach in compliance with the policies of the State Department of Parks and Recreation and the District Superintendent for State Parks had issued rr anorder allcwingehi-leas:~. dog usage. Interestingly, though, the court stopped sti riofCity toprepareEms.. pp < C � Er=n � the an because the administrative record did not contain substantial evidence showing that the General Plan amendment had a potential environmental impact, The majority of the corentc �efE;ed addressed social concerns such as the propriety of off -leash dog use, railer than environmental =acts. The remainder of the comment letters addressed the existing environmental conditions at the beach. As such, these comments did not show the potential for environmental impacts above the already existing baseline. Because the court found no record evidence that significant environmental impacts may result from the project, the court ruled that it could not determine whether an EIR was required. Instead, the court ordered the City to: (1) redraft its initial stud;' to include the additional analysis of policy change, and. (2) determine, on the basis of the revised =_niti i study, whether a negative declaration or an Era should be prepared. In the past few years, a number of cases have addressed how the lead agency should define the baseline when faced with arguably illegal or unsubstantiated uses of property. Unfor;ar atel -. Lighthouse .each sheds little light on this tricky topic. Lighthouse Beach seems to be in direct conflict with Fat v. Count), of Sacramento, 97 Cal_. App. 4th 1270 (2002), which held :hat, even where the existing environmental conditions have been degraded by illegal activities, those existing conditions normally constitute the baseline for purposes of conducting e_ vironznertal review of a proposed project. Under Fat and its predecessor cases, Bloom i%. McGurk, 26 Cal, App. 4th 1307 (1994), and Rivenvatch v. County of San Diego, 76 Cal. App. 4th 1428 (999), the lead agency's reliance on existing environmental conditions as the baseline wit. be upheld as l -'g as its choice is supported s e-idence. .,tppor d by substantial ��- �, 14 S CRAM7N?o\taiCKMAN'128 so.1 Lighthouse Beach, on the ether hand, harkens back to a concurring Opini0n in Lewis v. Seventeenth nisi. tg,ccuI iu: n1 Asst..165 Cal. App. 3C823 i 1 r:85J, which suggested tJat when a racetrack 1•a'< been expanded `%pit o t undergoing environmental review, the expansion should not be considered part of the baseline. Id. at 838. A rececase, Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, 87 Cal. App. 4th O9 (2001), seemed to concur with the Lewiso xr' E less ere._ approach .cr f» Our TY 'su a, the appellate court Lt, � - c.._,._, deferential -�.-_ _�.� a,._�_.,.�„__ to baselines, _ Save F e���., . found that the evidence supporting the agency's choice of baseline for water use was riot sufficient enough to constitute substantial evidence, and the LR.'s water supply analysis. was �uw e this of overturned based on t=ems defect. The Fat line of_ cases appear to be better reasoned and more appropriate. given tt=e deferential standards of judicial review that are supposed to apply to a public agericy's CEQA de G .._ s, " _v..` . _e .s choice. of baseline, However, in light Cr t_Ne confiioL.'__ further`gul hcourts the Legislature i. F e before d �ui;lancc �,__ ._�e or will )e needed E7.,_G'_-.. public a ei3.':e,`_ can. corn crtably ne.vigate ttiis Gi fcunt area. C1 .4LLEN'GES TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Redevelopment projects continue to generate CEQA li iga. on. largely because lead agencies are unclear on the extent to which the EIRcertified for the Redevelopment Plan satisfies CEQA review requirements for subsequently implemented phases Or -projects of the plan. Fort-unateTy, in 2005, the courts provided S rrie guidance for lead agencies on this, s..t sect. First, CR I" City ofRedevelopment /1 ii. d tent t� ..�,f'�`� v. 'y-�'�C<.7"t Diego ,._`C-`eYC�. confirmed that, to theextent ii� the Redevelopment Plan `;1R contemplates and adequately atel analyzes zes the potential e':':,' i is o -mcnt :.Y impacts of the s' bseque' t project, the redevelopment agency may rely on that EIR as the environmental review QCc?:.i_. CREED also held that the "fair argument' standard d0e s not apply to judicial review of an agency's determination that a project is 3R it ;_r the scone of the previously certified Redevelopment Plan EIR. Lincoln Place also dealt with the scope of the project approved in the Redevelopment Plan. In that case, the court foundthat the redevelopment project necessarily included not only the approved construction but also the necessary demolition of the buildings currently located On the project site. Lincoln Place also held that either: (?) the demolition had to comply with the mitigation measures imposed on the redevelopment project when the redevelopment project Etc was certified, or (2) if substantial evidence showed that those mitigation measures were no longer feasible, the City had to make a finding supporting that conclusion and prepare a Supplemental EIR to analyze the environmental impacts of the demolition. CREED s'. Ci ' of San Diego Redevelopment Agency, 134 Cal. App. 4th 598 (2005). in Tiny 2002, a developer submitted an application to construct a 30-story, 450-room hotel in dov,intown San Diego. The City's Redevelopment Agency, determined that the project's potentially significant environmental impacts had been sufficiently analyzed in two previous E2c's prepared for The Redevelopment Plan Area. The Agency determined no additional environmental review was necessary. PetitIoner's lawsuit sought to compel preparation of a project-speciic Ea to a_-talyze the hotel's impacts. SACF O1 NTO' BUek=tif:i°ds59(.i Relying on language CEQA Section 21090(b), petitioner alleged that "every project undertaken as par of a redevelopment t,ia t [has] to receive project -specific environmental review unless the plan itself was the subject of a project Etc." Petitioner claimed that the program E. prepared for The Agency's y's Redevelopment Plan did not qualify so projects undertaken pursuant tothe plan _tee .undergo tat needed �: �_td :g0 additional environmental review. The court. rejected this claim, . _g that CEQA d0es not require additional project - specific environmental review for redevelopment projects whose environmental effects have been adequately studied in aprogramE . When agency determines pre' i ly ,, the a�EnC� that a previously certified program Ells. adequately discloses and analyzes the environmental consequences of the, specific activity, then the agency may proceed with the decision on :the basis of the environmental record. Because the hotel project was not proposed until after the �ogram EL . and SEII were c e.rtifi ed petitioner contended reliance on 12Ose documents violated CEQA. To the extent the program Ea contemplates and ade _uateiv analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the project, it may serve as the environmental review document for a subsequently proposed prOiect. . Petitioner also alleged that tide Agency's decision not to require preparation of an EIR should be reviewed under the "fair argument" standard. The "fair argument" standard provides than an agency nnust prepare an. E "whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence thatthe project may have significant environmental impact." (.ATo Oil, Inc. v. City of Los. Ageles (1974) 13 Ca1.3d 6g 7g The fair argument standard does not apply t0 judicial review of an agency's e'" ice'iswithinscopepreviously- Rather,once _t;.xr".:a�lo=_ that a project the of a completed �"1�. l�.at�iE... an agency has prepared an Epic, its decision not to prepare a supplemental or subsequent EIR for a later protect is reviewed under the deferential "substantial evidence" standard. Under this standard, the reviewing court will uphold an agency's decision not to require a supplemental or subsequent E'li if the administrative record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the determination that the ntaior modifications cations of the EIR are not required. This deferential standard is a reflection of the fact that in-depth review has already occurred. Lincoln Place Tenants Association. v. City of Los Angeles (Los Angeles Lincoln Place r-s Ltd.), 130 Cal. App. 4th 149 (2005) Lincoln Place involved a redevelopment project which proposed to demolish a mid- century garden apartment complex in the Venice Beach area of Los Angeles. The court found that the City violated CEQA by issuing demolition permits for structures within the complex without either requiring compliance with the mitigation measures intended to reduce impacts to historical resources or conducting additional environmental review of its decision to waive those utt�aonl measures. Experts disagreed about whether the complex's architecture qualified it as a cultural or historic resource. After seven years of litigation on affordable housing issues, the project was reconsidered in 1 994. The city council found that the complex was.not a historical resource, recertified -ied the EfR and reapproved the project with n_.tigati0n measures requiring that, prior to SAC Rki,iEii T O\ EUiCF:1V5AN\2559C.= demolition of any S.r uCt-i:E es: 4 ) photographs be taken to document the typical exterior al interior features., () drawings be made of each type of unit and ofr the overall site plan, a the structures be offered for sale and r'e_moval to a new location. The city council found that. with this mitigation, the p rcject's impacts on historical resources Eh lid be reduced below a _e ter of significance. Follotning` the city COuncii s appio al of the redevelopment prc ec-, the State Historical Resources Commission determined that the complex was eligible for nc'usion in the National Register of Historic Places. The owners of the apartment complete then flied an application for a hermit to demolish five structures on Lake Street. Eased on the owners' claim that the Lake Street demolition was not part of the previously approved' redevelopment project, the Cites ae°d the demolition permits without requiring the owner to comb v i %the historical resources _.ti at'ion measures. Thecourte led the owners' claim that the demolit_on of is .s, s as i •oi first mej �_. the tr€ictute.. a a_ _ . part of the redevelopment project the City previously approved. theThe owners claimed that the Citymerely7 approved tractbuild on property, and the demolition had pr- ti-ec a map to tit d new buildingsyp p i ".- of the old buildings therefore was not part of the redevelopment project. Somewhat testily, the court labeled this argument `disingenuous at best," particularly since the -EIR for the 'redevelopment project admitted, "The applicant proposes to demolish 795 apartments grouped in b. ildinigc ,. Still unconstrained by reality, the owners thenargued that the mitigation measures ' g themdocument complexfie n is salewere nottriggered"w rein,r"n� lO doCia�tlerit the CG ir,l `� and offer the units for w„:e urti_l. 'w e start building." Again, n, this argument was premised no the notion that the redevelopment project did not include the demolition needed to allow construction of the redevelopment st project. The court rejected this argument as well, noting the mitigation measures explicitly states that they applied "prior to demolition." Indeed, the owners' argument would have rendered the mitigation measures illusory. because it would be impossible to document or offer for sale units that had P,lready been demolished. The court then noted that, although the City could not ignore the mitigation measures it had imposed on the redevelopment project, it could modify or delete them if: (1) the City found them to be infeasible, and (2) that conclusion was supported by substantial evidence. The court suggested that the deletion of a mitigation measure under such circumstances may require the preparation of a Supplemental EIR. The court's holding regarding preparation of a Supplemental EIR makes sense in the content of a proposal to delete a mitigation measure that was relied upon to support a finding that the project's impacts had been mitigated below a level of significance: if the mitigation measure were subsequently found to be infeasible and deleted, then the previously identified impact would be re -categorized as significant. A Supplemental EIR would be needed to analyze the impacts of that significant impact. _However, if the mitigation measure was not required or relied upon to reduce the proiect's impacts below a level of significance, then the lead agency should be able to delete it without preparing a Supplemental FIR. The key factor should be whether the project, with that mitigation measure deleted, has significant environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the previously certified E. SACRAMENT uCKii toN.28 9G.; HISTORICAL fl _ACT S Historical impacts can be challenging because many historical buildings are privately Brined but they a_e often also old and in need of renovation. While CEQA provides es that a renovation project will not have a significant impact on a historical resource if the renovation meets certain federal standards, the cost of renovating to those s andarGs is prohibitive for many private home or building owners. On the other hand, the cost of an ETr which is required ed for a renovation project that will adversely impact historical resources not performed to federal standards is also quite steep. Local agencies often find themselves caught between trying to help average citizens make desired property improvements, sometimes or seismic or other safety considerations, and trying to ensure protection of their local historic resources. One 2005 case helps resolve one aspect of this problem by squarely Lc cing that a private homeowners renovations to the interior of his historic residence do nv _pact public historic resources and therefore are not suto CEQA review. Martin v. City and Gaunt), of San Francisco, 135 Cal. Apn. 4th 392 (2005 I this case, the court he€d that CEQA did not apply to interior modifications of a private residence located in a stateand. national historic district. The court concluded that such modifications were not within CEQA's meaning of "environment" and that the application Cf CEQA to such modifications ions was not within the spirit of the law, t he petitioner owned a San Francisco house which was con_ _acted in 1853 and remodeled in 18 < the famous architect Willis Polk, His house was designated as a City �. 1✓ by a__iv C.,, v_ landmark in 1977, and in 1988 his neighborhood was fisted on the National Register of '.stor Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. Neither his house nor its interior features were indi v idcai i listed on the national or state registers. i 2001, the petitioner applied to the City and County of San Francisco for a building pernal to remodel portions of the home's interior. The City, through its planning, department, detetniined that Me home was a historical resource and that his plans for renovating his home would result in "a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource." Based on this finding. the City conditioned any possible future approval of the building permit on his compliance, with CEQA review. Petitioner brought suit against the City seeking a declaratory judgment that the proposed renovations were not subject to CEQA and that the City had no discretion under its law to deny the building permit. The court found that the City had "almost plenary discretion" in determining whether to issue a building permit. Nonetheless, the court concluded that the City could not condition the renovations on CEQA compliance. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, exempts from CEQA the interior or exterior alterations of an existing private structure v,%1'dich entail negligible or no expansion of existing uses. Moreover, CEQA is only triggered by discretionary actions which may have "a significant effect on the environment." "Environment" must encompass something more than what is perceivable only by one person. Changes to the "environment" must be publicly perceptible and include more than mere unobservable changes to the inside of a private home. Thus, the modification of a single family residence in a manner that is not perceptible or observable, to the public is not an action which triggers CEQA. SACRAME]' :oU3Ucxmiosr3S590-1 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNI EC __ CE [[� � In '_�iii C the L�U ' f� }/LdrmLb�(�ti � -�'• a S`tE Ltii ., v £., for �.�£l ..,°"GF`cF1ie7ii decision ,_ivat;:i.ating. portions of the i 998 State Cl7QA Gu.Geii_es relating to thresholds cf s g nif.anCe, leadagencies cS and courts continue to struggle with how to define and apply thresholds of significance, pat iar when the lead agency defines- the threshold of sign f cance as a standard set by another agency, such as "will the project exceed any appi ..able water qua__ty sta.:[... ardsT' One of `'e 2005 cases, Californians for Alternazives to Taxies v. .)eDartment of Food &,A..,gricullure, 136 Cal. -pp. 4th 005), reaffirms the Communities for a .Better Environment holding that a project's mere satisfaction of another agency's. regulatory sta da'sd does not equate to a acki of e 1v ronmental impact. ~corCi gz , Ine lead ag�ncy must perform its own, independent analysis he 'oleos potential impacts in that area. 7 ?": ' for- AIternarives t r TTxics v. Department of Food & Agr cu4tn.re, l 6 Gal. App.. 4t. `,2005) This case concerned the Department of Food and Agricuiture's pes..iciae program to eradicate the Glassy -Winged Sharpshooter (C`+'. S threatens wine grape crops in California hit spreading a bacteria that kills grapevines by clogging their water conducting vessels.) Due to the aggressive nature of the GWS, the California legislature enacted emergency legislation in 200G to combat. Pierce's Disease,and protect ii f n+ billion dollarindustry. 1 The California's � 50 �_on gape � tl- � 4, legislation authorized the DepartmentDepartmeilt to maintain, establish andenforce the Pierce's Disease Control Program. Tuly 2000, i_he Department ado,nted emergency regulations for the PDCP to eradicate the spread of the pest. Because the program was an emergency, it was exempt from CEQA. `_ However, the Department later decided to continue the emergency program as a long-term ii sect and notified the public of its intent to prepare an E. The draft EIR included a rapid response to use pesticides. Several environmental groups criticized the Departments reliance on compliance with existing pesticide regulations as inadequate uate to protect human health. These groups argued that the Department: (I) failed to address the impact of three primary pesticides additives. and (2) incorrectly, relied solely on existing pesticide regulation programs to conclude there are no significant adverse impacts associated with pesticide use rather than evaluating independently the impacts of the proposed statewide use of the multiple pesticides. The court agreed that the Department's reliance on DPR's regulatory program was inadequate. While DPR registers pesticides, the Department is still responsible for analyzing the environmental impacts of proposed pesticide uses under the PDCP. in addition, DPR's registration of a particular pesticide does not account for specific uses of the pesticide, such as the amount to be used, the frequency of rise and the specific areas of application. By retying exclusively on the pesticides' registration status, the Department failed to analyze the environmental consequences of PDCP`s proposed statewide application program. SACRAIViEN onBuCKIVIAN :659h.1 ANALYSIS OF EXTRATERRITORIAL f)i_ C l S Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission is arguabit themost recent decision to the scope r Q v's duty ze ec 's extraterritorial tonalimpacts. T--wc consider .,L of the lead awe g.. to analyze a �-o�� t trace_ _ :� 1., u recent cases, Muzzy ;zy Ranch Co. v. coiano County Airport Land Use CC,oinm c , formerly 125 Cal. App. 4th 810 (2005), and County Sanitation Dist. IN!o. 2 of Fos Angeles Coin it Count:), of Kern, l 4th 5`4 (2 yy0/�5) h_ suggestedhasduty analyze the 1L � Cal. App. 1 4 ~Jt1✓ t;. -lave that a lead agency G. to �C.!.ta� PLC' extraterritorial impacts of its projects even when it did not cause those impacts and has no control over them. L Muzzy Ranch, the Court of Appeal held that an airport' and use commission should. have prepared an Ea to ana' `r .e the impacts that a no -growth _,ran would have on the surrounding environment due to displaced development. The Supreme Court has granted review of this case, but, to date, it has not been resolved. In the meantime. the Fifth n District Court of Appeal issued Coi> nr r Sanitation Dist. No. 2 ofrLos Angeles County v. Cowl')' of Kern, 127 Cai. App. 4th 1544 (2005), discussedabove, which again held that the lead agency has a. duty to analyze tiie environmental impacts of its projects even on the actions of independent third parties outside of its jurisdiction. MU.7zy Ranch and County Sanitation District No. 2 are arguably _riconsiste. t with the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Sierra Club. In the latter case, the Supreme Court hel • that the California Coastal Commission was limit required to consider the impacts of a project outside the Coastal Zone on the Coastal Zone because the Coastal Commission's jurisdiction ends with the Coastal Zone boundaries. Similarly, in Citizens to Enforce CEOA v. City cf Roimert Park, 131 Cal..App. 4th 15G4 (2005), the FirstDistrict Court of Appeal held that the City of Ponnert Park was not required to conduct environmental review of a tribes proposed casino project when the casino would be located outside the City-'s jurisdiction. It be interesting to see whether the Supreme Courts fortlicornimg Mie.77.y Ranch decision offers some guidance as to a lead agency's obligations to analyze a projects potential environmental impacts when those anticipated impacts will occur outside the lead agency' jurisdiction and ability to act. Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission, 35 Cat. 4th 839 (2005) Tun Sierra Club V. California Coastal Commission. the Supreme Court interpreted a provision of the California Coastal Act not to provide the Coastal Con -,mission with authority to regulate activities located outside the coastal zone even when those activities could create cumulative impacts on the coastal zone. The case also considered two related CEQA arguments: (1) that CEQA requires the Commission to consider environmental impacts in the coastal zone of activities outside the zone. and (2) that extra record evidence showed the Commissioners delegated review and consideration of the final ElR to its staff in violation of CEQA. The court denied relief on both grounds. The California Coastal Act provides that the Coastal Commission has jurisdiction over projects within ore mile of the coast. However, Section 30604(d) of the Coastal Act which states: 20 SACRAIJENTOUPUCKI fitl,2S599.7 No devetopmerit or any portion [hereof that is outside the coastal zone shall be strbjed_ t:, the .,Guardl development pee'LC requirements of [the Coastali Asti. The development project considered in this case straddle the coat al zone both dry. Sierra Club.. at 849. The developer prepared an E. and received a coastal development permit from the Coastal Commission for the portion of the project within the coastal zone. Id. Sierra. Club challenged the Coastal Commission's issuance of the permit, claiming that CEQA required the Commission to assess the impacts of he development outside the Coastail Zone on a eas within coastal zone. Id. at 845. Specifically, Sierra Club argued that the Commission has a :O: (1 ) identify QeTt• V and evaluate all impacts on the coastal zone environment of a project tha t straddles the coastal zone boundary, and (2) refrainfrom approving an actin.ty ;tn 5igri'<<Cant toe coastal environment if av,..4able feats ti `. ... td is es mitt. would substantially lessen t"ice. iri"',�ccts. Id, at. 858. The court rejected these arguments. In mitigating or avoiding c roject's. significant on iir n nt effect, gene v' rna� exercise only those express or implied powers , io._mE�-tat e��E�t. a public a� pp _� . p_ provided by laws other than CEQA. Thisr means that when an agency does not have.jurisdiction authority to act, CEQA cannot fill the gap. Sierra Club, at 859. Consequently, the court was required to honor the limits of the Commission's authority under the Coastal Act. Id. Sierra Club also a.igued. )1tat the Coastal Commission's cc:. cation of the EAR was procedurally defective because the Commission did not receive and consider the Ea. Sierra Ciub's counsel submitted a declaration stating g .:tat, dmr_g a conversation with a coastal program analyst_ the analyst had admitted that "Commission staff bad:_ not provided the [C]ity's ElR to the Com_missio Hers, Sierra Cl .:, at 862-63. c,as rvs The court rejected this extra -record evidence. When an administrative board conducting a quasi-judicial proceeding states its findings, judicial inquiry outside the administrative record generally is precluded. Sierra Club, at 864. Because the Commission made extensive findings that specifically cited and relied upon the City's EIR, the court was precluded from questioning k-etL CoastalCommissione dt3 �� a uei the mei�ib q actually received and heat:. the Ea. Citizens to Enforce CEQA v. City of Rohrert Park, 131 Cab. App. 4th 1594 (2005) kn this case, the First District Colin. of Appeal held that the City of Rohner( Park was not. required to conduct environmental review of the impacts of a tribe's proposed casino project before executing aMemorandum of Understanding with the tribe. The only topics addressed in the MOU were the tribe's intentions to finance and mitigate for potential local impacts associated with its future casino project. The casino would be located nearby to, but not within the City. The court concluded that the MOU was not a project within the meaning of CEQA because it did not commit the City tc any particular action but instead merely served to establish a funding mechanism for potential future projects. Moreover, the MOU specifically required the City to complete. CEQA review before the City took any future actions to service the casino project. Consequently, the court concluded that the MOU was merely a government funding mechanism, the City was not ce_ ._fits. fig itself to develop the casino project, and the MOU was exempt from CEQs. SACK. v?ENTOVBUCKMAN,2E59D.7 OTHER 2005 CE,OA CASES I v'c of the 2005 cases do not fit neatly into arsy of the categories above but s�is Gt�'.tairi poi tant,, precedential CEQA holdings. These a'e: any -F` of Arcadia ' ..`,ta to Water Resources Control Board, 135 Cal. App. 4th 1392 (2006). which invalidated a Regional Board's proposed amendment to a basin plan due to inadequate CEQA review of the regulation's potential environmental irnpacts, and San Bernardino Associated Governments v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. App. 4th 1106 (2006), which upheld the determination of the San Bernardino Associated Governments that a transportation ballot measure was exempt from environmental review. City of Arcadia J. State l 'ater Resources Control Bo cw'r . 135 Cal, App, 4th 1 92 (2006) This case concerns the "zero -trash" raie adopted by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Water Resources Control Board for the Los Angeles River. In 1994. the Regional Board adopted the Basin Plan to prevent local water pollution. The Basin Plan regulates the Los Angeles River which now exists as a concrete -lined flood control channel through Los Angeles and other intensely developed cities. After the Los Angeles River became clogged with trash in 2001 by stormwater r un off, the Regional Board proposed to amend its Basin Plan to include a Trash TIC DL. The Trash Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) discharge '_imitation. The proposed trash TMDL set a numeric target of 'ero which would be phased in over a 14-year period. Compliance with the zero -trash TMDL could be accomplished by various methods tl'ie IsCiarCl."s p_"eler.red'netbov was installation of Vorl.F,X Separation System (VSS) units to capture trash deposited into the river by storm drains. installation of VSSs, result in soil disruptio i increased noise levels and traffic. The State Water Resources. Control Board environmental checl;ll s': failed to comply with,. CEQA. The Regional Board concluded its proposed Basin Plan could not have a significant impact on the environment, and therefore, did not prepare a negative declaration or an environmental impact report (ELR). Because there was a fair argument that the Basin Flail could significantly impact the environment, the Court of Appeals required the Regional Board to prepare an EIR. The Regional Board prepared an initial -study -type checklist to address the environmental impacts on the proposed TMDL. Because the Board's environmental reviews are performed under a certified regulatory program, the Regional Board is not required to prepare EIRs, negative declarations or initial studies. However, this "exemption" is largely semantic because the Regional Board is still required to prepare documents that serve as the functional equivalent of documents CEQA would noinially require. The "functional equivalent" to an EIR must include alternatives and mitigation measures that :might reduce significant environmental effects. The "functional equivalent" to a negative declaration must demonstrate that the project would not have any significant environmental effects. To analyze the envirommentai impacts of the zero -trash arisen nie'_:t to the Basin Plan, Regional Board relied exclusively on its initial study -type checklist, Apparently, the Regional 22 SAC RA.NET TOUBUCHIv4AI' 2E590.1 Board intended its checklist to be .he functional ed u i vaie__t of a negative declaration, However, on appeal, the Regional Board argued for he first time diet its checklist constituted a `first tier Ea. he Regional Board contended that "tier two environmental review [of the Zero -Trash TIVID = is the responsibility of the local agencies who T%i%_:i deters'± e hov,i they inten.d. to comp_ x it notrequired, with the performance standards." The Regional Board claimed than should CC _e.;€,. _ C to prepare more extensive documentation to analyze, the ervi_o ,.le it..._ because "there is no way to exa'rine project -level impacts that are entirely dependent upon speculative possibilities of how subsequent decisionmake_s may choose C comply [with the Zero-TrashTMDLs.' In other words, the Regional Board argued that because its regulation did not specify the precise means Vy which the regulated parties would achieve, compliance with the standard, the Board could not be compelled to undertake environmental _e\ fen' of the reasonabi?' foreseeable environmentalzmaC s of compliance, The Cour l of Appeal rejected these arguments and found Regionai Board's CE Q.'.. documentation inadequate on two grounds. First, the chet bj St din not qualify as a first Ea Second, the check.ist was not sufficient because an Ea was required, Although the. checkfist . described the beneficial impacts of the amended Basin Plan, it denied the project would have any environmental impact on laid. However, the cities had presented evidence that the \'SSs and the catch basin inserts would increase noise levels traffic, and soil displacement. The Board failed to analyze these potential e ,-ironn,er tal `°'i'pac"'S rid failed to even prepare the "functional equivalent" of a negative declaration. Therefore, the zero ash TMDE was promulgated in violation of CEQA and was invalid. Bernardisn• Associated Governments o'. SupCourt, 135 Cat, App. 4th 1106 -as , Best Best. &S':. Krieger attorneys IVEcheile Ouellette, Steven De3aun art Megan Starr successfully defended the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors from a suit alleging that SANBAG was required to prepare an ET. before placing on a special election ballot a tax measure authorizing future highway, freeway and Metrolink construction. S AN; AG had found that its action was exempt, stating that its submission of the measure to the voters was not a project under CEQA. Later thatsame month, the Board passed a Resolution calling for a special electionin November and posted its, own Notice of Exemption, which found that the Board's actor in placing the item on the ballot was ministerial and thus not subject to CEQA review. The court agreed that neither agency's actions constituted a project under CEQA. Consequently, the Sierra Club should have fled its challenge within 35 d _'!s of the posting of the Notice of Exemption, and Sierra Clubs suit was filed mled too late. tinder the Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act, each county board of supervisors can create its own local transportation authority and impose a sales tax to fund its local ti-msportation needs, Before the county can impose the sales tax, a transportation expenditure plan must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the transportation authority. The ordinarice also must be approved by a majority vote at a special election called "at the request of the authority. 22 SACRAMEN O`JBuCKMAN2E59J.i In San 'Bernardino, S4'kTBAG serves as the transportation au hority. AftP S�_ SAG distributed its expenditure plan to its member agencies, which approved the plan, SAI` -;A. • requested that the County place the measure on the ballot. SAIeBAG posted a Notice of Exemption stating that its request that the County submit the tax measure to the voters was not a project under CEQA_. The court held that SA.N'EAC had correcEf V determined that its action was exempt from CEQA. The court further found that the Board's action in placing the measure on the ballot was not a project subject to CEQA. The Board had no discretionary power to change the sales tax ordinance, shape the ballot measure, or even to reject SANBAC's request to place the measure on the ballot; it merely 'called" the special election, the court found that Sierra Club's Suit was ,.,,tinkly, Only SAINTBA act and not t=,e County s was a project subject to CEQA. Therefore, the 35-day deadline for _s the lawsuit began to run when SANBAG filed its Notice of Exemption.. Because Sierra Club failed to tine its law/suitlaw/suit before this deadline expired,its suit was filed too late. LITIGATION PROCEDURES pu t.ic agencies' CEQA decisions continue to generate a lot oI litigation, which in turn generates an ever-increasing number of published cases relating to CEQAlitigation procedures. 2005 saw an increase it. these procedural cases, perhaps reflecting the m.7erall expansion of CEQA_itigation in recent years. The seven published decisions on CEQA. 1 Ligation procedures tr .t came out in 2005 are: (I ) 'Hayward Area Planning Association v. Ciry of Hayward (Hayward 1900, Inc.), t.28 Cal, App. 4th 176 (2005), holding that the public agency cannot recover costs associat„dwith having the real part y's representatives prepare the administrative record unless the petitioner has previously agreed to this arrangement; (2) Mfej a v. City of Los Angeles, 130 Cal. App. 4th 322 (2005), finding that the administrative record must include all the documents relevant to any previous versions of the project, (3) Bowman v. City of Berkeley, 131 Cal. App. 4th 173 (2005), which granted attorneys' fees to partially success it CEQA petitioners; (4) Concerned Citizens of La Habra v. City of La Habra (Costco Wholesale Corporation), 131 Ca?. App. 4th 329 (2005), which denied attorneys' fees to partially successful CEQA petitioners; (5) Pro!ect Our Water v. County of Merced, 130 Cal. App. 4th 488 (2005), which found the petitioner was entitled to recover attorneys' fees for a previous case that overturned the CEQA approvals because the administrative record prepared by the petitioner but certified by the lead agency was wholly inadequate to support the county's actions; (6) Black Historical Society v. City of San Diego, 134 Cal. App. 4th 670 (2005), in which petitioner disputed the "excessive" cost of the administrative record and its case was dismissed after it repeatedly failed to pay any portion of the record costs or submit an opening brief; and (7) Ramona Unified School District v. Tsiknas, 135 Cal. App. 4th 510 (2005), holding that neither the initiation nor the maintenance of a CEQA lawsuit against a public entity will suppon a claim for abuse of process, even when the environmental clams are admittedly very "yin " SA-RP.htEN'T0uB CK] p. A2E 90.i Hayward Area Planning Assoc Cat, App, 4th 176 (200.5 City f Ha,T war'w !Hayward 19OO, Inc) This case nalyz..d, -,7,7hetherResourceC de Sectioni C for a court to award the costs of preparing a CEQA administrative record to a real lydr interest whenthe pet_tioner has not.consented to allow a third paw ) to prepare the aC _ rstrat_ record. The court concluded that where a public agency fails tO inform thepetitionerthat preparation of the record would be delegated to a third palty. the public agency is responsible: to: - costs. Public Resources Code Section 21 .6,'.6!. ) speclries e different means preparing.. an administrative record:(1) she public agency rayprepare and certify the record; Orc, t petitioner May prepare the record subject to rerLif ca:IC::s b y the public agency; may agree to an alternative method of 'preparing the record, subject to ce_iiiivatior by lb E >had delegated �' ratio„. of the record to the real pair. 's agency. Here, the public apEric3, c_..,_..gateCE the preparation �e attorney without obtaining petitioner's consent. For that reason, it z% as not entitled -itled to recover anjt costs associated with record preparation. Me `ia t=. City of Las Angeles'. 130 Cat.. p In IGBejia, the Second District Court of Appeal overturned a: tigated negative declaration prepared by the City of Los Angeles for a esidentiai development project because substantial e\ Bence supported a fair a.rgtx ent that the project would `nave significantn 7 r 't n �.,�e_.oi_ou�.,._tal iC on 1 ''.i1xa.and traffic. a-. project site was a.6,� .. � i c^ 1 rt_ tT°.LraC. ar �.:.al �n _l,__�_ t_GFsC. The proposed r GpeCt � a a largely isndE�'e�Op...i acre parcel sun-ounded by single-fe L, residences on large lots. n September 20071, the City prepared a,i Initial Study and a proposed IVIN!D for the project. About eight months later, the City prepared a new Initial Stud, and MINTD to respond to wildlife and traffic concerns neighboring boring homeowners raised in response to the prior MND. Still another Initial Study a. (.1 proposed MND were prepared in September 2002 to reflect a reduction in the number of approved homes from 23 to 21. On appeal, the court addressed only two issues: (1) whether the administrative ative record was incomplete, and (2) whether an EIR should have been prepared to analyze potentially significant impacts to wildlife and traffic. First, the court held that Public Resources Code Section 21161.6, subdivision (e, requires that documents relating to prior versions of a project also be included in the administrative record. The court also held that the petitioner's request for judicial notice was the practical equivalent of a motion to augment the administrative. record, thereby excusing petitioner's failure to file a formal motion. The court next considered whether :he project's potential impacts to wildlife and traffic required the preparation of an EIR. Recognizing the low thresholdfor the. preparation of an EIR, the Court found that the most recent biotic assessment for the project site, prepared in December 1998 (about four years before the current version of the project), concluded that the site was "relatively rich in animal life," that develo; seen t of the lane ?nrori_u eliminate the site's uSe as a movement v ei ent corridor for small mammals, a ad that a survey for sensitive and special status species 2f SACK/.LIEN; OVEUCKMANv28590.1 should be conducted.. Numerous residents stated that they had seen marry types of wildlife, on the propertyincluding golden eagles, Coyotes hawks, migratory birds, and rabbits. The City's 20t 2. initial study also stated that the site contained nearly 340 trees, many of which would be removed upon development of the site. However, the 2002 initial Study coneiu6ed that the project would not have significant impacts on biological resources because the project site was net linked to any forest Cr recreational lands; was not identified as habitat for sign endangered, or threatened species; and no significant fish or wildlife species were know. the site as a migratory path. Because the 2002 initial St.,tdy's. "no impact" conclusion was inconsistent with the 1998 biotic assessment and with the less than significant conclusion of the 2001 Initial Study, the court held that a fair argument F ent could he made that the project Would have a significant impact to v,t:tls=e The court then considered the evt ertce supporting the Initial Study ve er impacts to traffic would be "less .Tian significant." The court found that the City h significance threshold for traffic impacts which found. that projects with less than 40 res dentin units would not have significant traffic impacts. Bellying on this threshold, the initial Study concluded that the 21-unit project had no otential to creaCe significant traffic impacts. The court held that significance thresholds do not operate conclusively and public agencies cannot rely on a threshold in theface of substantial evee`ce that the i1pac;s of t.e particular project may be. significant. Residents of the neighborhood stated that the street serving the proposed project was too narrow to accommodate any increase in traffic, partly due to the road's use for equestrian purposes. The City Department of Transportation confirmed that the street which would serve the proposed project was a "collector street" which would have to carry traffic from several surrounding streets, In light of these public comments and in the absence of a ,more detailed traffic study, the City should have found that there was a fair a_rgurnent that the potential impacts s to r affic were significant, Bowman v. City of Berkeley, 131 Cal. App. 4th 173 (2005) This case is an appeal of an attorneys' fee award arising out of one of the cases, we discussed irk our 200E memorandum, Bowman Cio' of Berkeley, 122 Cal. App. 4th 572 (2004). Although petitioners' CEQA challenge failed, they succeeded in having the City's approval of the retail and low-income housing project overturned. The appellate court found that petitioners were successful in obtaining their primary goal — overturning the project approval — and thus affirmed the trial court's order awarding petitioners attorneys' fees and costs. Petitioners were successful on only one of their original six causes of action — the due process claim. However, this was sufficient for them to succeed in having the City's original project approval vacated. Because petitioners succeeded in having the City's CEQA approval vacated, they were entitled to some recovery of their attorneys' fees and costs. Concerned Citizens of La Habra v. City of La Habra (Costco Wholesale Corporation.), 131 Cal. App. 4th 329 (2005) In contrast to :%owman, this case denied recovery of attorneys' =ees to a partially sail CEQA petitioner. Petitioner in Concerned Ct ize➢is alleged six causes of action 26 sACRHhh ENTO\JB UCKI'iA1\1\2R590.'s of which were decided against [. However, , with regard to the C .Qr_ cause of action., the trial court found that the record did not Coritaiit su s-aii ial evidence to support .re negative declaration's conclusion that traffic impacts from "cut through" traffic in. neighborhoods near the proposed Costco would be less than significant. The court ruled that the City needed undertake additional analysis in ar` Initial Study and then issue a new WIND or prepare an H. . Petitioner contendedus e..cit ed to attorneys' rvees under t 1e pr 6 ate attorney ge a ,rai doctrine because its partial success resulted in a benefit to the commuters in the neighborhoods close to the proposed Caste°. The court rejected this argument because: (1) ail but one of petitioner's causes of action had failed, and (2) the inadequacy in the record support for the MND''s conclusions about c -th? ugh tragic was 2 r' flute hie_ .sn„ which, j;,:he, Corrected, LTrife€\changethect p� e,e oar. reasoned benefit toin' �. would not t _� ; project. The appellate, C ,_ aSQ fed that `..7e �,._ � the uv`rC was not "significant" and, thus, petitioners werenot.entitled c recto er their feces. Protect Our' Water Coui v of .forced,, 130 Cal< App, 4th 488 (2005) This appeal concerns the a or teys' fees motion brought by petitioners t.ioners _^Us V:_'_'_g OW Water t'. County of Merced 110 Cal. App. 4th 362 (2003). En 2001, POW filed a pet=_.ion fJ_ writ of mandate challenging a conditional use permit the County of Merced issued for a surface a- m i ing operation project. Tin 20v3, the Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to set aside the C onnty's approval for the craning project because evidentiary support for the Count is apprc' al Could not be found in the poorly organized administrative e_eC;rCNotably; E,i0 prepare the administrative, record itself, The County merely der tined ttie record, t e court chastised the County for the record's lack of organization and inadequacy. On remand from. the appellate court decision, POW =lied for attorneys' Sees, ciainting Lunt _ts ati suit bestowed a benefit to the public. True court agreed that POW had prevailed it the mandate proceeding and was entitled to recover its fees. Ironically, then, POW was s found to be entitled to recover its fees because the administrative record that POW prepared was so wholly inadequate to support the county's actions. This second POW case again reemphasizes the need for any adrn strata e record certified by the public agency to be complete, accurate, and organized.. Black Historical Society v. City of San Diego, 134 Cal. App. 4th 670 (200 Li this case, the Black Historical Society filed a petition challenging the approval of a low income housing development on a site that it claimed had historical significance. The Court dismissed the appeal when the Society failed to obtain or file with the court a copy of the adrniriistrative record or an opening brief. The petitioner requested that the City prepare the administrative record and deliver it thin' 190 days. The City asked the petitioner to provide a $2,000 deposit for preparation of the record. Two months later. the Society indicated it intended to seek a waiver of costs for preparation of the record. The City countered that Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1094.5(a) d the petitioner ipaycosts. The c, ordered the parties to meet and and i'd� .Fii,C) required iu., :,iiuC'ler to for e G:="e C �i..,E.. �, confer to settle the issue, but the parties were not able to resolve this dispute. After the record was finalized, the court ordered the petitioner to bear the costs and required the petitioner to 27 SACRAME iii.YJBU0 MANs28.590.i prepare an opening brier:before the end of the month. The court subsequently extended t- f h deadline by about three weeks, but the petitioner failed to meet this deadline The project applicant hen brought a motion to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution, R'hich the court granred. On appeal the petitioner rill. _ e tj'at it had bey t �,..e �.._ .ed from aril �. 1 " LS case because the City had improperly "field t fie reco:d hostage. The court rejected tk i5 contention noting that the petitioner never sought a court order requiring the City to release the record without prepayment and did not avail itself of alternate means of obtaining the record as allowed under CEQA. See Pub. Resources Code Section 21167.6(b)(2). Because petitioner had requested the City to prepare the record and then failed either to pay the costs as ordered by the court or to seek modification of the order, the granting of the motion to dismiss iss was ar p op i ate. Ramon Uni ed School District v. Tsikrias, i3S Cal. App. 4th dig C2005). In this case, Ramona Unified School District filed a claim for abuse of process agc nsi. neighbors who had filed a series of unsuccessful CEQA challenges to an elementary school project. RUSD adopted a mitigated negative dec aration, which was not timely challenged, and subsequently adopted an addendum that covered converting the project from septic tanks to sewer service. Petitioner filed a lawsuit challenging the addendum. While the suit was pending, RUSD decided to scrap the plans in the Addendum and move forward with the septic system as originally planned. RUSD filed a motion seeking judgment and the court found all challenges to the M D were time barred, the sewer system plans in the addendum were abandoned, and in any event, the addendum complied with CEQA. Undeterred. Neighborhood Alliance for Safe Ramona School Districts filed an amended petition c_ain-ling the traffic analysis in the addendum remained operative. After RUSD demurred, the court dismissed this second petition or essentially the same grounds as the first. NASRS then filed a motion for private attorney general fees arguing the practical effect of the litigation forced RUSD to abandon changes to the project that did not satisfy the CEQA process. The court denied NASRS's :notion for fees and RUSD's cross -motion for sanctions. This led to RUSD filing suit against NASRS, its principals and attorney for abuse of process and. ban-atry. NASRS filed a motion to strike under the burden shifting anti-SLAPP statute and the trial court concluded RUSD could not produce sufficient evidence to show probable success. Additionally, the trial court awarded NASRS attorney's fees. RUSD subsequently appealed. The "appellate Court found that the continued pursuit of meritless litigation for an improper collateral purpose, although actionable under malicious prosecution principles, was not separately actionable under an abuse of process theory as RUSD had argued. The court disregarded RUSD's labeling of its claim as abuse of process and instead concluded that the gravamen of the claim was for -malicious prosecution, which was barred. The court determined that a government entity could not institute a proceeding against a former plaintiff based on malicious prosecution because the constitutional right to petition would be improperly chilled if citizens were faced with the specter of defending a malicious prosecution claim if their petitioning activity was unsuccessful. Although RUSD conceded its claim challenged acts that were taken iu therance of constitutional rights of petition, RUSD argued that there was 28 SACRA v ENTO'jBUC1O AN1_8590. i evidence the defendants had tieulterior rnoff_ ve, to harass RUSD into canoeling the project and misused the writ proceed rs.gs to pursue era_ r s NASRS knew were substantively theritiess, Nonetheless, the Court concluded that the anti-SLAPP statute was to be broadly/ construed and neither the initiation nor maintenance of CEQA la.n s t. against a public t S' supports an abuse of process claim. CONCLUSION As always, CEQ« rem aiCv_rt,,ter;'.arid � bis area o is s how gtrickly. the r,' es change. Should you have any questions ah o 't an:", c f'the case ent i_onmertai review of any of -,our age ?/ s, Iojects lease conta assistance. out tLv BEST BEST & KRI GER l' T P Jennifer T, Buckman Charity R. Sch ler r;. sACRAMENTOUBUCKJJ ANi28590.1 bcc: Municipal, Special Districts, Natural Resources SACK MENTOVBUCKMAN\2g590.] AG Pinit MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN JACINTO CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 3. 2006, 7:00 p.m. San Jacinto Unified School District Board Room 2045 South San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto, California 1. ORGANIZATION 1.1 Call to Order Mayor Dale Stubblefield called the regular meeting of the San Jacinto City' Council to order at 7:04 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call Present: Jim. Ayres, Robert Ritchie, Ken Shaw, ©ale Stubbiefield Absent: Chris Carlson Buydos 1, invocation Vice Mayor Ken Shaw gave the invocation. 1.4 Pledge of Allegiance Council Member Jim Ayres red the Pledge of Allegiance. 1.5 Special Presentations 1.5.1 Introduction new Fire Captain Dave Cabral / Battalion Chief Bob Michael Item continued to the next meeting, as Captain Cabral was not able to attend due to a scheduling conflict. 1.5.2 Proclamation to be presented to Keith Hunter regarding his patriotism Mayor Stubblefield read the proclamation and presented it to Mr. Hunter. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 2.1 City Managers previous month's public comments report City Council Minutes August 3, 2006 Page 2 of 10 City Manager Barry McClellan gave his repo CONSENT CALENDAR 3.1 Warrants at 08-03-06 / Approve / Finance Director 3.2 Action Minutes July 20, 2006 / Approve / City Clerk 3.3 Treasurer's Report for June 30. 2006 / Receive and File / Finance Director 3.4 Audited City Financial Statements — Fiscal year ending June / Accept and File ` Finance Director 200 3.5 Notice of Completion Traffic Signal and. Street Improvements / Ramona Expressway and. Eagle Road / City Engineer 1) Approve the Notice of Completion 2) Authorize the release of retention in the amount in the amount of $31,190.13 thirty days after recordation of the Notice of Completion 3.6 Measure A Audit Report for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 (ending 6/30/05) Accept and File / Finance Director 3.7 Ordinance No. 06-20 / An Ordinance amending the Redevelopment Plan for the Soboba Springs Redevelopment Project Area / Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance 06-20 and by further motion read by title only: An Ordinanceof the City Council of the City of San Jacinto Amending the Time Limit of the Effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan for the Soboba Springs Redevelopment Project Area Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33333.6(d) 3.8 Release of Bonds — Final Tract Map 30688 1) Release in full the labor and performance bonds 2)) Direct City Clerk to notify developer and surety company of City's action 3) Direct Special Districts Division and Public Works Division to assume maintenance responsibility for the associated subdivision infrastructure 3.9 Final Tract Map 32499 — Lennar Homes of California Inc 1) Approve Final Tract Map 32499 for recordation 2) Authorize Mayor to sign Final Tract Map 32499 City Council Minutes August 3, 2006 Page 3 of 10 3) Authorize City Manager to execute the subdivision agreement 4) Authorize City Clerk to release said map for recordation City Clerk Chouinard pulled Agenda Item 3.2 to be continued tc a late M/S/C (Ayres / Shaw) moved to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Ayres, Ritchie, Shaw, Stubblefield Nays: None Absent: None Abstain: None 4. PUBLIC HEARING Rancho Estrella Specific Plan -- to develop 283 detached single farnily homes on 5,000 and 6,000 square foot Tots. an 8.23 acre public park. 1.2 acres of public parks, 2.1 acres of greenbelt, a 4 acre detention basin. and 9.4 acre reserved for the future alignment of Highway 79. Tentative Tract Map No. 33141 / Applicant: Century American Development / Community Development Director a) Approve and Adopt a mitigated Negative Declaration and its associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program b) Approve introduction and first reading of Ordinance No. 06-18 and by further motion read by title only: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California Approving Change of Zone 8-05, A Zone Change from R-2, (Two Family Residential) to SP (Specific Plan), on property located on west of Sanderson Avenue, South of the Casa Loma Canal, East of Cawston Avenue, and North of Cottonwood Avenue c) Resolution No. / A Resolution approving Planning Commission Specific Plan 01-2-05, a specific plan to be known as the Rancho Estrella Specific Pian / Appi ive and Adopt d) Resolution No. _ / A Resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 33141 for the Rancho Estrella Specific Plan, 241-lot subdivision located generally west of Sanderson Avenue, south of the Casa Lorna Cana/. East of Cawston Road and north of Cottonwood Avenue / Approve and Adopt Applicant requested continuance to date uncertahi. Resolution No. 2951 / A Resolution certifying the results of an election and adding property commonly known as Tract 18568 into Community Facilities District No. 2003-1 for Police and Fire Services City Council Minutes August 3, 2006 Page 4 of 10 (CFD 2003-1, Annexation No. 33 I Approve and Adopt I Special Tax Consultant and City Attorney NOTE: Agenda Items 4.2 and 4.3 were heard simultaneously. Mayor Stubblefield opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 p.m. No one was present to support or oppose the annexation and levying assessment. City Clerk Chouinard reported there were no written comments received; certified the election results, noting the majority is in favor of the annexation and levying the assessment. Mayor Stubblefield closed the Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. M/SIC (Ayres i Stubblefield moved to approve and adopt Resoftitcn No. 2951 as presented. Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Ayres, Ritobe, Shaw; Stubblefield Nays: None Absent, Buydos Abstain:: None 4.3 Resolution No. 29521A Resolution certifying the results of an election and adding property commonly known as T31294 into Community Facilities District No, 20G3-1(CFD 2003-1) for Police and Fire Services - Annexation No. 351 Approve and Adopt 1 Special Tax Consultant and City Attorney NOTE: Agenda items 4.2 and 4.3 were heard simultaneously, Mayor Stubblefield opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 p.m. No one was present to support or oppose the annexation and levying assessment. City Clerk Chouinard reported there were no written comments received; certified the election results, noting the majority is in favor of the annexation and levying the assessment. Mayor Stubblefield closed the Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. M1S/C (Ayres / Stubblefield) moved to approve and adopt Resolution No. 2F/2 as presented. Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Ayres, Ritchie, Shaw, Stubblefield Nays: None Absent: Buydos Abstain: None 4.4 Resolution No. 2953 / A Resolution annexing territory into Assessment District 2003-1; confirming the levying of assessme City Council Minutes. August 3, 2006 Paae 5 of 10 therein and ordering the maintenance roads, streets and highways - Annexation No. 21 T31294 Approve and Adopt Special Tax Consultant and City Attorney NOTE: Agenda Items 4.4 and 4.5 were heard simutaneoush,, Mayor Stubblefield opened the Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. No one was present to support or oppose the annexation and levying assessment. City Clerk Chouinard reported there were no written comments received, certified the election results, noting the majority is in favor of the annexation and levying the assessment, Mayor Stubblefield closed the Public Hearing at 7:`,, 3 rivsic (Ayres Ritchie) moved to approve and adopt Resolution No, 2953 as presented. Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Ayres, Ritchie, Shaw, Stubblefield Nays: None Absent: Buydc s Abstain: None 4.5 Resolution No. 29541 A Resolution annexing territory into Assessment District 2003-1 confirming the levying of assessments therein and orciering the maintenance roads, streets and highways - Annexation No. 22 for T32499 I Approve and Adopt / Special Tax Consultant and City Attorney NOTE: Agenda Items 4.4 and 4.5 were heard sftriultaneousiy. Mayor Stubblefield opened the Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. No one was present to support or oppose the annexation and levying assessment. City Clerk Chouinard reported there were no written comments received; certified the election results, noting the majority is in favor of the annexation and levying the assessment. Mayor Stubblefield closed the Public Hearing at 7:13 p.m. M/S!C (Ayres 1 Ritchie) moved to approve arid adopt Resolution No. 295 as presented. Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Ayres, Ritchie, Shaw, Stubblefield Nays: None Absent: Buydos Abstain: None City Council Minutes August 3, 2006 Page 6 of 10 4.6 Landscaping, Lighting, and Park District No. 2 (LLPD No. 2) Annexation No. 60 (Ramona State Plaza, LLP — APN Nos. 433s270-032) Special Tax Consultant and City Attorney a) Resolution No. 2955 r A Resolution initiating proceedings for the Annexation of property into LLPD No 2 — Annexation No. 60 Approve and Adopt b) Resolution No. 2956 / A Resolution approving the Engineers Report for Annexation No. 60 into LLPD No. 2 / Approve and Adopt c) Resolution No. 2957! A Resolution declaring intention to annex property into LLPD No, 2 — Annexation No. 60 / Approve and Adopt d) Public HearingAt the conclusion of the public hearing if the City determines that a majority protest does not exist, by motion approve the certification of the election results for adding certain property into LLPD No. 2 known as Annexation No. 60 / Approve and Adopt Resolution No. 295E / A Resolution ordering annexation of territory into LLPD No. 2 and levying assessments M?S?C (Ayres / Ritchie) moved to approve and adopt Resolutions 29 2957 as presented. Mayor Stubblefield opened the Pubic Hearing at 7:14 p No one 'was present to support or oppose the annexation and levying the assessment, City Clerk Chouinara reported there were no written comments received; certified the election results, noting the majority° is in favor of the annexation and assessment. Mayor Stubblefield closed the Fublic Hear at 7:15 p.m. M/S/C (Ayres / Ritchie) moved to approve and adopt Resolution No. 295E as presented. Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Ayres, Ritchie, Shaw, ✓tubblefield Nays: None Absent: Buydos Abstain: None 4.7 Landscaping, Lighting, and Park District No. 2 (LLPD No. 2) Annexation No. 61 (Park Meadows II LLC T31294) / Special Tax Consultant and City Attorney a) Resolution No. 2959 / A Resolution initiating proceedings for the Annexation of property into LLPD No 2 — Annexation No. 61 / Approve and Adopt City Council Minutes August 3, 2006 Paae 7 of 10 b) Resolution No. 2960 f A Resolution approving the Engineers Report for Annexation No. 61 into LLPD No, 2 / Approve and. Adopt c) Resolution No. 2961 / A Resolution declaring intention to annex property into LLPD No. 2 — Annexation No. 61 I Approve and Adopt d) Public Hearing / At the conclusion of the public hearing if the City determines that a majority protest does not exist, by motion approve the certification of the election results for adding certain property into LLPD No. 2 known as Annexation No. 614, Approve and Adopt Resolution No. 2962 / A Resolution ordering annexation of territory into LLPD No. 2 and levying assessments MI/SIC (Ayres ./ Stubblefield) moved to approve and' adopt Resolution; and 2961 as presented. Mayer Stubblefield opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 p• s. No one was present to support. or oppose the annexation and le\pyii7 City Clerk Chouinard reported there vvere no written comments `s .oe certified the election results, noting the majority is in favor of th annexation and assessrEmen . r,ilayor Stubblefield losed the Public at : 16:30 p.m. M/S/C (Ayres f Stubblefield) moved to approve and adopt Resolution No. 2962 as presented. Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Ayres, Ritchie, Shaw, Stubblefield Nays: None Absent: Buydos Abstain: None 5. STAFF REPORTS 5.1 Estudillo Mansion Advisory Committee Vacancies / Appoint / Redevelopment Operations Manager Vice Mayor Shaw requested this item be continued to August I , 2005. The Council unanimously concurred. 5.2 San Jacinto Avenue and Tradewinds Lane Sight Distance Review / Receive and File and direct staff as appropriate I City Engineer MIS/C (Ayres / Ritchie) move =•; to approve: 1) To relocate the existing SCE (Southern California Electric) electrical box so that it is cut of the sight distance of the site 2) Lower the block wall to three feet within the sight Erie City Council Minutes August 3, 2006 Page 8 of 10 3) Move the stop bar forward on Tradewinds Lane to center of the curb return 4) Relocate the street Tight from the northwest corner to so corner 5) Remove tree foliage within the sight line and restrict plants and shrubs to 12 inches above the ground Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Ayres, Nays: None Absent: Buydos Abstain: None Resolution No. 2963 / A resolution supporting the efforts of the University of California Riverside (UCR) for a School of Medicine Approve and Adopt / City Manager MIS?C (Ayres f Ritchie) moved to approve and adopt Resolution t o. 2963 as presented. Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Ayres, Ritchie, Shaw, Stub— field Nays: None Absent: Buydos Abstain: None 6. MAYOR / COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS / DISCUSSIONS 6.1 Council Members' Reports Mayor Stubblefield recessed the regular rneeting at :52 p.m. and reconvened d into Closed Session at 8:02 p.m. 7. CLOSED SESSION 7.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9) Name of Case and Number: Worker Compensation Claim 63-339!17 Claimant: Jennifer Royster Agency claimed against: City of San Jacinto City Council Minutes August 3, 2006 Page 9 of 10 No reportable action 7.2 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: Assessor Parcel No. (APN) 435-291-014 Agency negotiator: Barry McClellan, City Manager Negotiating parties: Paul Howard and Dolly Howard Under negotiation: Price and Terms No reportable action. 7.3 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: 201 E Main Street Agency Negotiator: City Manager ano0 City Attorney Negotiating Parties: Alonso Ledezma Under Negotiation.: Price and Terms No reportable action, 7.4 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTATORS Property: 181 E Main Street Agency Negotiator: City Manager and City Attorney Negotiating Parties: Alonso Ledezma Under Negotiation: Price and Terms No reportable action. B. A JOURNMENT With no further business before the City Council, Mayor Stubblefield adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. City of San Jacinto By Dale Stubblefield, Mayor City Council Minutes August 3, 2006 Page 10 of 10 t7T Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Clerk AGENDA REGULAR MEETING of the SAN JACINTO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of the CITY OF SAN JACINTO AUGUST 17, 2006 Immediately Following the Regular City Council Meeting San Jacinto Unified School District Board Room 045 South San Jacinto: Avenue, San Jacinto, California ORGANIZATION Call to Order Roll Call PUBLIC COMMENTS Now is the time for the public to •address the- Agency on any.subject not listed oo the agenda, Any person may address the Agency on'any subject pertaining: to Redevelopment Agency business not listed on the Agenda during,this portion of theMeeting, A limitation of three (3) minutes shall be ;set for each person desiring to address: the! Agency Directors, CONSENT CALENDAR The matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by, one motion by Agency Members in the form listed There will be no separate discussion on these items prior to the motion unless members of the Redevelopment Agency, staff or the public requests a specified item be removed•and/or discussed: If an item is pulled, it will be heard at the end of number '6. Stet Reports.' • August 3, 2006 Regular RDA Minutes:/ Approve / Agency Se eta PUBLIC .HEARING STAFF REPORTS At the end of the Scheduled City Department items, anyone wishing to discuss a consent calendar item shouldcome forward upon invitation of the Chairman; state their name, address; and the consent calendar item number pulled. Speakers should limit comments to three (3) minutes. 5. Factory Outlet Consultants / Consider proposal and direct staff/Assistant City Manager RdeyelopmentAgericy Agenda , August17,2D06' Page,2:of 2 CliAIRPERSQN•/ MEMBER REPORTS i DISCUSSIONS OPEN SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code, Section 54956.8 Property: Assessor Parcel Nos APNs 439-110-098; 439-110-932; 439-110--031; 439-110-025 Agency negotiator Executive Director and City Attorney Negotiating parties: Lucia Development LLC Under negotiation: Price and Terms CONFERENCE WITH REAL" PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS" " Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: Assessor Parcel. No:. 437-045-0 i 8 Agency negotiator Executive Director and Representative from City Attu: Office, Negotiating parties: Joe Adair Under negotiation: Price and Tern s ADJOURNMENT it is the intention of the City of San Jacinto to comply with the'Americans: with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant at: this meeting, or in:meetings on a " regular -`basis, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally:proviided, ,the-'Citywil!. attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner.; Please: contactCifyHallat;(951) 537 6358, at least 48-hours prior to the meeting to inform us of. your' particular needs and to determine ifaccommodation is;feasible: if yoci challenge any action of the Redevelopment Agency Board in court, you MaY be limited to" raising only those you or someone raised at the public hearing described irr this notice; or :. in -written -Correspondence defivered to the RedevelopmentAgency (c/o ;Redevelopment Secretary) at, `or prior to,:the public hearing. I, �17orothy" L. Chouinard, Secretary of the San Sannto RedetieCopment Agency, do "hereby certify that I caul &e posted the foregoing agenda the 28 -day of5uCy, 2006, as required ly Cazv. orothy L. CCZout ACih1TO REDEVELOPMENT AG F SAN .JACINTC3 acinta, hairman Dale ubblefield called> edeveloprnen# Agency to order ai NSENT CALENDA SLIC HEAR AIRPERSON;! gar; 5tubblefie corivened said. EN SE SION ANNOUNCEMENTS OSED SESSION CONFERENCE 1t1(1TH. REAL PROPEL TY NEGOTIATO Pursuant to Government Cole .Seetlor 54956.8 Property:`Assess:or Parcel Nos. APNs 096; 439-'1;1,0--031; 439�110-025 Agency negotiator: ExecutiveD rectorand CityAt 4 Negotiating"parties Lucia 0?e�reioprr exit LLC Under negotiation: Price and Terms, No .reportable actiorf )NFE12ENCE i0191Tii REAL PROPERTY NEOOTIATC irsuant'to Goverenrnent',Code Section 544956.8 operty .Assessor Parcel Nos. `APNs.,+ 39-11 , 096 9-110 -0 1 439 110 025 iency negotiator ExecartEve irecte r and. Represe! Redevelopment Agency Minutes August 3, 2006 Page 3 of 3 8. ADJOURNMENT With no further before the Agency Board, Mayor 'ubblefield adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. San Jacinto Redevelopment Agency By Dae Stubblefield. Chairman ATTEST: Dorothy L. Chouinard, Agency Secretary