[Archive Home][Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


"California Supreme Court Decision"

California Supreme Court
Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission Case No.

The California Supreme Court issued a decision June 21st that will have a
significant impact on future airport land use planning in California.  In
2002 the Solano County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) updated its Travis
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (TALUP). A developer, Muzzy Ranch
Company (Muzzy), filed a lawsuit to invalidate the plan. In its
deliberations the Court interpreted the California Aeronautics Law, the
California Environmental Quality Act and the public housing law before
ruling that the TALUP was valid.

The TALUP covered 600 square miles and extended more than 35 miles through
Solano County.  Muzzy owned more than 1000 acres within the  area.  Muzzy's
lawsuit  alleged that the ALUC should have required an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR).

The ALUC argued that no EIR was required because the TALUP was not a
"project" as described by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The ALUC argued further that the TALUP was entitled to a "common sense
exemption" under California law.

 The Court faced 3 issues: 1) Was the TALUP a project? Answer, Yes; 2) Did
the ALUC meet procedural requirements for a "common sense exemption"?
Answer, No. 3) Was there some legal basis for deciding with the ALUC and
finding the TALUP valid? Answer, Yes.

Here is a summary of the Court's analysis, discussion and decision:

The Court quoted from the California Environmental Quality Act.

"Long-term protection of the environment, consistent with provision of  a
decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian, shall be
the guiding criterion in public decisions."

An EIR is required only if there is substantial evidence that a project will
have a significant effect on the environment. An airport compatibility plan
along with a local general plan guides the future growth and development of
cities and counties.

Was the TALUP a "project" as that term is used in the California
Environmental Quality Act? A "project" is defined as an activity which may
cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change. The Court ruled that the TALUP was a

In ruling that the TALUP was a "project" the Court settled a debate that has
long existed in California over whether a Negative Declaration could be
applied instead of requiring an EIR when adopting an airport compatibility
plan. This clarifying ruling by the California Supreme Court will be of
major importance in future airport land use planning.

The Court's ruling  will require a change in the way  airport land use
commissions function. Each new compatibility plan or amendment of an
existing plan will be subject to CEQA review.

This likely will require an EIR. It means ALUCs are facing a major financial
challenge. The formulation of an EIR requires the services of professionals
who charge for their services.

Airport land use commissions have no funding source for an EIR.

Their respective sponsoring counties are required to provide ALUCs only
minimal funding sufficient for office and administrative needs.

Would the TALUP qualify for a "common sense exemption" from an EIR?  A
"common sense exemption" applies where it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant
effect on the environment.

To establish a "common sense exemption" a notice of  exemption must be filed
by an ALUC. The notice must include a statement of reasons why the exemption
applies. Although the ALUC filed a notice of exemption with the Clerk of
Solano County, it failed to provide a statement of reasons.  This negated
the "common sense exemption."

Was there a basis for the Court to find the TALUP valid? Yes.

The ALUC had incorporated the Solona County General Plan into the TALUP and
did not impose  any zoning or other changes. This was the saving feature for
the TALUP. The existing General Plan zoning was mainly agricultural.

The Court stated although the ALUC had not followed the correct procedures,
it arrived at the correct result. Since the County General Plan had
previously undergone an EIR when it was adopted, there was no need for the
ALUC to require another one.

The Court went further and offered instructive comments that may serve as
guidance in future airport land use planning.

Environmental impacts in areas outside the boundaries of an airport
compatibility plan must be considered. The Court discussed California's
ever-increasing population and related need for housing. The Legislature
requires that local jurisdictions in their land use planning identify
adequate sites for housing and make adequate provision for the existing and
projected needs of all economic segments of the community, including the
locality's share of the regional housing need.

The Court suggested that the location of future housing could be influenced
by restrictions on housing in an airport influence area. This would be an
indirect effect influenced by an airport compatibility plan. While this did
not enter into the Court's decision in this case, it should serve as a
signal to land use planners and consultants to consider how housing needs
outside compatibility plan boundaries may enter into future planning.

Jay C. White, General Counsel, California Pilots Association.

   Post your comments in the CAA Legislative Forum


Current CAA news channel:

Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. If you have any queries regarding this issue, please Email us at stepheni@cwnet.com