Madrigal

Madrigal v. City of Huntington Beach

Good Law
147 Cal. App. 4th 1375·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 263·2007 Daily Journal DAR 2655·55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 209·7 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2104
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 31, 2007G036991California4,055 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fybel, J.

Introduction

We consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the City of Huntington Beach (the City) properly issued a grading permit without conducting an environmental review of the permit’s impact, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). “The fundamental purpose of CEQA is to ensure ‘that environmental considerations play a significant role in governmental decision-making’ [citation].” (Fullerton Joint Union High School Dist. v. State Bd. of Education (1982) 32 Cal.3d 779, 797 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 398 , 654 P.2d 168 ].) “CEQA must be interpreted to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of statutory language. [Citation.]” (Day v. City of Glendale (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 817, 823 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 569 ].)

The City found the entire project was exempt from compliance with CEQA because it involved a minor alteration to land, and issued a notice of exemption at the same time it issued a conditional use permit (CUP) for the project. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15304, subd. (a).) (All further references to title 14 are to title 14 of the California Code…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.