<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Santos Planning &#38; Permitting</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.santosplanning.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.santosplanning.com</link>
	<description>Sustainable development balanced within our natural environment</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:35:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>CEQA v. Brokenness</title>
		<link>http://www.santosplanning.com/2012/03/ceqa-v-brokenness/</link>
		<comments>http://www.santosplanning.com/2012/03/ceqa-v-brokenness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 02:23:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Santos Planning &#38; Permitting</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Blog]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.santosplanning.com/?p=694</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On January 28, 2010, the City of Berkeley approved permits to demolish an existing home on a 29,714 sq.ft. parcel and to construct a new 6,478 sq.ft. home along with an attached 3,394 sq.ft. 10-car garage.  The City&#8217;s findings held that the Berkeley Hills single-family residence &#8220;in-fill development&#8221; project was categorically exempt from CEQA.  Opponents of the [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;"><img class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-699" style="border-image: initial; border-width: 5px; border-color: white; border-style: solid;" src="http://www.santosplanning.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/2707-Rose-St.-Berkeley-150x150.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="150" /><span style="color: #000000;">On January 28, 2010, the City of Berkeley approved permits to demolish an existing home on a 29,714 sq.ft. parcel and to construct a new 6,478 sq.ft. home along with an attached 3,394 sq.ft. 10-car garage.  The City&#8217;s findings held that the Berkeley Hills single-family residence &#8220;in-fill development&#8221; project was categorically exempt from CEQA.  Opponents of the project appealed that decision to City Council, claiming that the project would likely have significant impacts, including undisclosed vegetation removal and grading required to mitigate potential seismic risk.  City Council denied the appeal, and the opponents then filed suit.  The Alameda County Superior Court ruled in favor of the City and applicant.  However, on February 15, 2012, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the Trial Court&#8217;s decision and <a title="Berkeley Hillside Preservation et al. v. City of Berkeley et al. and Donn Logan et al." href="http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A131254.PDF" target="_blank"><span style="color: #000000;">ruled</span></a> that the project was not exempt from CEQA.  The Appellate Court satisfied two arguments in its decision that preparation of an EIR was required for the project: 1) There was a <span style="text-decoration: underline;">fair argument</span> supported by substantial evidence that significant effects on the environment would result from the proposed construction.  Thus, a categorical exemption was inappropriate.  2) There was evidence of <span style="text-decoration: underline;">unusual circumstances</span> provided by the project&#8217;s size.  The Court rebuffed the City&#8217;s application of categorical exemption based upon consideration of the size of <em>vicinity</em> development and pointed, rather, toward the broader category of similar structures throughout the City, i.e. typical single-family residences.</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.santosplanning.com/2012/03/ceqa-v-brokenness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District</title>
		<link>http://www.santosplanning.com/2012/02/cbia-v-air-district/</link>
		<comments>http://www.santosplanning.com/2012/02/cbia-v-air-district/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:49:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Santos Planning &#38; Permitting</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Blog]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.santosplanning.com/?p=684</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In June, 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) adopted the State’s first and only numeric greenhouse gas thresholds of significance.  However, the adoption of the thresholds was not reviewed as project under CEQA.  The California Building Industry Association (CBIA) subsequently filed a lawsuit claiming a violation of CEQA in the Air [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;"><img class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-685" style="border-image: initial; border-width: 5px; border-color: white; border-style: solid;" src="http://www.santosplanning.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Marin-County-Coastline-150x130.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="130" /><span style="color: #000000;">In June, 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) adopted the State’s first and only numeric greenhouse gas thresholds of significance.  However, the adoption of the thresholds was not reviewed as project under CEQA.  The California Building Industry Association (CBIA) subsequently filed a lawsuit claiming a violation of CEQA in the Air District’s failure to treat the thresholds as a project and carry out the proper environmental review.  On January 9, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court ruled that the adoption of the thresholds was a project as defined by CEQA.  Now, for new and pending projects, the Air District&#8217;s thresholds can still be relied upon in determining an impact’s significance, but the appropriateness of using the thresholds should be well explained.</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.santosplanning.com/2012/02/cbia-v-air-district/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>County of Los Angeles 2011 Bicycle Master Plan</title>
		<link>http://www.santosplanning.com/2011/11/county-of-los-angeles-2011-bicycle-master-plan/</link>
		<comments>http://www.santosplanning.com/2011/11/county-of-los-angeles-2011-bicycle-master-plan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 05:48:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Santos Planning &#38; Permitting</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Blog]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.santosplanning.com/?p=605</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On November 16, 2011, the County of Los Angeles completed and made public for review its Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft PEIR) for the 2011 Bicycle Master Plan.  The Plan builds off of and would replace the 1975 Bikeway Plan, including approximately 816 miles of new bikeways and a multitude of new policies and [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;"><img class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-126" style="border-width: 5px; border-color: white; border-style: solid;" src="http://www.santosplanning.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/LB-Pike-Lane1-150x150.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="150" /><span style="color: #000000;">On November 16, 2011, the County of Los Angeles completed and made public for review its Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft PEIR) for the 2011 Bicycle Master Plan.  The Plan builds off of and would replace the 1975 Bikeway Plan, including approximately 816 miles of new bikeways and a multitude of new policies and programs encouraging more bicycle ridership throughout the County, improved safety, and greater local and regional bikeway network connectivity.  The Draft PEIR is available for review at <a href="http://dpw.lacounty.gov/go/bikeplan" target="_blank"><span style="color: #000000;">http://dpw.lacounty.gov/go/bikeplan</span></a>.</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.santosplanning.com/2011/11/county-of-los-angeles-2011-bicycle-master-plan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Mountains Local Coastal Program</title>
		<link>http://www.santosplanning.com/2011/10/la-county-local-coastal-program/</link>
		<comments>http://www.santosplanning.com/2011/10/la-county-local-coastal-program/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2011 02:00:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Santos Planning &#38; Permitting</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Blog]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.santosplanning.com/?p=473</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning continues to work on changes to the proposed draft Santa Monica Mountains Local Coastal Program (LCP), which, upon certification by the California Coastal Commission, will transfer authority to the County to issue Coastal Development Permits in the Santa Monica Mountains Coastal Zone.  The County Board of Supervisors [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;"><img class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-611" style="border-width: 5px; border-color: white; border-style: solid;" src="http://www.santosplanning.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/LA-County-seal-150x150.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="150" /><span style="color: #000000;">The County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning continues to work on changes to the proposed draft Santa Monica Mountains Local Coastal Program (LCP), which, upon certification by the California Coastal Commission, will transfer authority to the County to issue Coastal Development Permits in the Santa Monica Mountains Coastal Zone.  The County Board of Supervisors approved the LCP on October 30, 2007, at which time staff proposed and was directed to make <a title="Draft Local Coastal Program modifications directed by Board of Supervisors" href="http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/coastal_20071023-changes.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #000000;">modifications</span></a> to specific development standard polices, environmental resource designations, water quality provisions, and fire protection regulations.  Once these changes are made and found satisfactory to the Board, the LCP will be ready to be submitted to the Coastal Commission for its review process.</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.santosplanning.com/2011/10/la-county-local-coastal-program/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
