229 Cal. App. 4th 340
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- CEQA challenge to City of Fresno's project approving 28-townhouse infill; two houses (Crichton 1906 Heritage Property and Sayre 1910) slated for demolition.
- Preservation Commission authorized to review Pleasant CEQA aspects and issue a mitigated negative declaration for the project.
- City delegated potential CEQA responsibilities to Preservation Commission, but delegation legality in Municipal Code was disputed.
- Trial court found Preservation Commission lacked authority to approve the mitigated negative declaration; City appealed.
- Plaintiffs sought mandamus to require EIR, arguing potential historical resource impacts; demolition occurred after Preservation Commission action.
- Court held the Preservation Commission lacked express authority to complete CEQA review and approve MND; under Valley Advocates, analysis requires substantial evidence, not fair argument, for determining historical resources.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Preservation Commission had authority to approve CEQA document | Preservation Commission lacked authority to approve MND | City could delegate CEQA duties to Commission | No, Commission had no express authority to approve CEQA document |
| Whether CEQA required an EIR for historical resources | There could be historical resources requiring EIR | Proper analysis under CEQA supports MND if no substantial evidence of significant impact | Valley Advocates standard governs historicity, not fair argument for initial determination of history |
| Impact of historic resources on environmental setting and environment | Area around project may constitute historic district | Historic district status not established; setting described adequately | No CEQA error in setting description; district status not treated as historical resource under CEQA |
| Whether City Council de novo review cured CEQA defects | De novo review could remedy defects; notice/finding requirements unmet | Administrative appeal insufficient to cure prior CEQA defects | CEQA defects not cured by administrative appeal; writ affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Valley Advocates v. City of Fresno, 160 Cal.App.4th 1039 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 2008) (established three routes for historical resources and applied substantial evidence standard)
- POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd., 218 Cal.App.4th 681 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2013) (delegation of environmental review duties and independence in review)
- County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern, 127 Cal.App.4th 1544 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 2005) (fair argument standard governs initial study determination of EIR need)
- Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach, 52 Cal.4th 155 (Cal. 2011) (defines fair argument standard and CEQA thresholds)
- Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal.3d 247 (Cal. 1972) (statutory interpretation and CEQA protections principles)