Muzzy Ranch v. Solano Cty. etc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 9/12/07 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA MUZZY RANCH CO., ) ) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) SOLANO COUNTY AIRPORT LAND ) USE COMMISSION, ) ) Defendant and Respondent. ) ___________________________________ ) S131484 Ct.App. 1/5 A104955 Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCS020127 MODIFICATION OF OPINION THE COURT: The opinion herein, appearing at 41 Cal.4th 372, is modified as follows: 1. The last sentence of the text paragraph straddling pages 385 and 386 of 41 Cal.4th is modified to read: The exemption can be relied on only if a factual evaluation of the agency s proposed activity reveals that it applies. (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 114.) 2. The second full text paragraph on page 386 of 41 Cal.4th is modified to read: In any event, in connection with its argument its adoption of the TALUP is exempt from CEQA, the Commission acknowledges that whether a particular activity qualifies for the common sense exemption presents an issue of fact, and that the agency invoking the exemption has the burden of demonstrating it applies. (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 114.) An agency s duty to provide such factual support is all the more important where the record shows, as it does here, that opponents of the project have raised arguments regarding possible significant environmental impacts. (Id. at p. 117.) In the first text paragraph on page 387 of 41 Cal.4th, the second, quoted, sentence is modified to read: [T]he agency s exemption determination must [rely on] evidence in the record demonstrating that the agency considered possible environmental impacts in reaching its decision. (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 117.) In the first text paragraph on page 387 of 41 Cal.4th, the final sentence is modified to read: Since legitimate questions were raised about the possible environmental impacts of the Commission s adopting the TALUP, the Commission had the burden to elucidate the facts that justified its invocation of CEQA s common sense exemption. (Davidon Homes, at p. 117.) The first complete text paragraph on page 388 of 41 Cal.4th, the third sentence is modified to read: Evidence appropriate to the CEQA stage in issue is all that is required. The modification does not affect the judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
