In this case the court held that the City of Monterey Park’s “Measure BB merely established a competitive bidding process for future waste services contracts; the new manner of awarding such contracts is a “fiscal activity” which does not involve a commitment to a specific project and therefore does not constitute a project subject to CEQA.”
The case includes a discussion of the following cases which address whether various funding agreements and measures are projects subject to CEQA:
- “Kaufman & Broad-South Bay, Inc. v. Morgan Hill Unified School Dist. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 464 (Kaufman), – In Kaufman “a developer challenged a school district’s resolution to establish a community facilities district (CFD) under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Gov. Code, § 53311 et seq.) on the ground the district’s formation of the CFD was a “project” within the meaning of CEQA. Kaufman held the formation of the CFD was not a project within the meaning of CEQA.”
- Sustainable Transportation Advocates of Santa Barbara v. Santa Barbara County Assn. of Governments (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 113, 117 – The issue presented in this case was “whether Measure A, a county retail sales and use tax to fund transportation projects, was invalid because it was not preceded by environmental review under CEQA.” The court held that: “respondent’s actions did not demonstrate that, as a practical matter, it had committed itself to the implementation of the transportation projects in the Investment Plan. Measure A does not qualify as a project within the meaning of CEQA because it is a mechanism for funding proposed projects that may be modified or not implemented depending upon a number of factors, including CEQA environmental review. (CEQA Guidelines § 15378, subd. (b)(4).)”
- Citizens to Enforce CEQA v. City of Rohnert Park (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1594 (Rohnert Park) – In which “a citizens group sought to force a city to comply with CEQA before entering into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with an Indian tribe regarding funding of possible public improvements in connection with the development of a casino adjacent to the city.” “Rohnert Park held the MOU was merely a funding mechanism which “sets no time for development and does not obligate the City to undertake a specified construction project. Rather, it is an agreement to establish a source of funds for potential future improvements if the casino project takes place. The MOU specifically acknowledges that CEQA review and compliance may be required if the City ever provides infrastructure related to the casino project. Mere authorization of the funding mechanism set out in the MOU is not a ‘project’ for purposes of CEQA.”
- Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116 – As explained in this case: “In Save Tara, a city conditionally agreed to allow a private developer to redevelop property for senior housing. The agreement was predicated on future compliance with CEQA. (Id. at p. 126.) However, because the city already had committed itself to the project, Save Tara held the city’s approval of the project should have been preceded by preparation of an EIR. In reaching this conclusion, Save Tara considered, inter alia, the following factors: (1) the city agreed to initially lend the developer nearly half a million dollars, a promise not conditioned on CEQA compliance (id. at p. 140); and (2) if the city did not give final approval to the project, it would not be repaid. (Ibid.) The fatal flaw in Save Tara was that the city had “committed itself to a definite course of action regarding the project before fully evaluating its environmental effects.” (Id. at p. 142.)”