CITY OF SANTEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO et al., Defendants and Respondents; STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

In this case, the court evaluated whether a siting agreement between the County and the State constituted “approval” of a specific project, thus triggering CEQA review. Under the agreement, the County identified two potential sites for a prison reentry facility, the State agreed that the County would have preferential access to funding if one of the sites was selected, and the County committed to convey land if one of the sites was selected. The City argued that the agreement committed the County to a site for the facility and also committed the County to expand its own jail located within the City limits because the agreement effectively eliminated consideration of an alternate site. Under Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, the Court of Appeal held that CEQA review is required only when an agency takes an action that significantly furthers a project in a manner that forecloses alternatives or mitigation measures. Looking both to the agreement itself and the circumstances surrounding the agreement, the court determined that nothing in the record supported the conclusion that the siting agreement committed either the County or the State to either a reentry facility or a County jail expansion within the City. By its terms, the agreement did not select a location for the reentry facility, did not refer at all to the County jail expansion, did not obligate the State to select any site, and did not provide the County with any financing preference if none of the County sites were selected. The County obligation to convey land was entirely conditional upon State selection and did not suggest any commitment by the County to any particular site, especially when the County also identified a site that it does not own.