exception to the rule an agency must prepare an EIR before acquiring the land for a (Saltonstall (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 549, 570 [“CEQA project. v. City of Sacramento provides an exception to the prohibition on commitment to a project before environmental review for purposes of land acquisition”].) In (1991) 235 Stand Tall on Principles v. Shasta Union High Sch. Dist. Cal.App.3d 772 (Stand a school district passed a resolution selecting a specific site Tall), for the construction of a new high school and a resolution directing its administration to make a formal purchase offer contingent on of the EIR process.” (Id. at “completion p. 777.) The appellate court concluded the resolutions did not trigger the duty to prepare an EIR. The new school site selection was made contingent on CEQA “expressly compliance” and therefore did not the District to a of action” definite course “commit because the district would be required to assess all reasonable alternative “thoroughly sites in its EIR.” (Id. at p. 781.) In the California Supreme Court approved the CEQA Guidelines’ Save Tara, for land purchases” contingent on CEQA compliance as a “exception “reasonable interpretation of [the statute].” (Save 45 Cal.4th at p. 134.) The court also Tara, supra, approved of the court’s application of the exception because the facts of that Stand Tall case showed the school district had not committed itself to a course of action.” “definite (Save at pp. 132-133.) Our high court cautioned, however, that the acquisition Tara, exception was not a rule” allowing EIR preparation to be postponed all “broad “in circumstances by use of a CEQA compliance condition.” (Id. at p. 133.) For example, an
exception to the rule an agency must prepare an EIR before acquiring the land for a project. (Saltonstall v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 549, 570 [“CEQA provides an exception to the prohibition on commitment to a project before environmental review for purposes of land acquisition”].) In Stand Tall on Principles v. Shasta Union High Sch. Dist. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 772 (Stand Tall), a school district passed a resolution selecting a specific site for the construction of a new high school and a resolution directing its administration to make a formal purchase offer contingent on “completion of the EIR process.” (Id. at p. 777.) The appellate court concluded the resolutions did not trigger the duty to prepare an EIR. The new school site selection was “expressly made contingent on CEQA compliance” and therefore did not “commit the District to a definite course of action” because the district would be required to “thoroughly assess all reasonable alternative sites in its EIR.” (Id. at p. 781.) In Save Tara, the California Supreme Court approved the CEQA Guidelines’ “exception for land purchases” contingent on CEQA compliance as a “reasonable interpretation of [the statute].” (Save Tara, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 134.) The court also approved of the Stand Tall court’s application of the exception because the facts of that case showed the school district had not committed itself to a “definite course of action.” (Save Tara, at pp. 132-133.) Our high court cautioned, however, that the acquisition exception was not a “broad rule” allowing EIR preparation to be postponed “in all circumstances by use of a CEQA compliance condition.” (Id. at p. 133.) For example, an
E065213.DOCX