City of Selma v. City of Kingsburg CA5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 14, 2016F071156California13,821 words

Opinion

Opinion

INTRODUCTION

The City of Kingsburg (Kingsburg) recently expanded its boundaries by annexing approximately 430 acres of land. Before approving the annexation, Kingsburg concluded the project would not cause any unmitigated significant environmental impacts. Accordingly, Kingsburg prepared a mitigated negative declaration. Shortly after approving the annexation, Kingsburg repealed certain design standards applicable to the annexation area. Kingsburg determined the repeal was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code,1 § 21000 et seq.) because it was “certain” there was “no potential” for the repeal to cause environmental impacts. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15061, subd. (b)(3) [commonsense exemption].)2 With respect to the annexation project, we conclude the City of Selma (Selma) has failed to carry its burden in challenging Kingsburg’s CEQA compliance. However, with respect to the repeal of the design standards, we conclude Kingsburg failed to carry its burden of demonstrating the commonsense exemption to CEQA applies. Consequently, we affirm the judgment denying Selma’s petition for a writ of mandate concerning the annexation project,…

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.