Laserfiche WebLink
Court Of Appeal Applies Traditional Deferential Standard Of R... Page 3 of 4 <br /> measures. Nevertheless, the appellate court applied the traditional <br /> deferential standard of review of the Board's interpretation of its own land <br /> use documents. The appellate court's conclusion was that the priority <br /> policies were not of the character found in the FUTURE (Families Unafraid <br /> to Uphold Rural etc. County v. Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th <br /> 1332) case which would warrant elevated significance in a consistency <br /> determination. The court then reviewed the Board's consistency, finding and <br /> substantial evidence, and under the acknowledged deferential standard of <br /> review, upheld the Board's determinations. <br /> The opponents also argued that the appellate court should overturn a <br /> demurrer granted by the trial court. In the trial court, the opponents included <br /> cause of action based upon the alleged violation of due process rights of the <br /> tenants. This argument was based upon the development agreement. The <br /> appellate court however, concluded that the development was a legislative <br /> act, and therefore did not trigger the due process rights as set forth in the <br /> opponent's legal claim. Accordingly, the demurrer was appropriately <br /> granted. <br /> • While the court did not publish the CEQA portion of the decision, the court <br /> did publish the portion dealing with the dispute over the record of <br /> proceedings. The opponents were arguing to keep documents out of the <br /> record of proceedings (a role reversal compared to most other CEQA cases.) <br /> The appellate court noted however, that record of proceedings is expansive <br /> as recognized in Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera <br /> (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, and that the opponents failed to demonstrate <br /> error by the trial court by its refusal to reject the disputed materials. The <br /> appellate court then addressed the question of prejudicial error, assuming for <br /> the sake of argument that documents were improperly included. The burden <br /> was on the opponents to show the prejudicial error, which burden the <br /> opponents failed to carry. <br /> William W. Abbott is a partner at Abbott & Kindermann, LLP. For <br /> questions relating to this article or any other California land use, real <br /> estate, environmental and/or planning issues contact Abbott & <br /> Kindermann, LLP at (916) 456-9595. <br /> http://blog.aklandlaw.com/2014/11/articles/ceqa/court-of-appeal-... 2/22/2015 <br />