Opinion
Page 163a
126 Cal.App.4th 163a __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ MUZZY RANCH CO., Petitioner and Appellant, v. SOLANO COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION, Defendant and Respondent. A104955 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fifth Division February 4, 2005Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCS020127
The opinion filed January 5, 2005 (125 Cal.App.4th 810; 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 60) is modified as follows:
THE COURT:
1. On page 4 of the opinion filed January 5, 2005 [125 Cal.App.4th 818, advance report, last par.], in the third paragraph (beginning “At issue in this case . . .”), the quotation from Public Utilities Code section 21675, subdivision (a) shall be modified to change the phrase “a comprehensive land use plan” to “an airport land use compatibility plan.” The following footnote shall be added after the citation to Public Utilities Code section 21675, subdivision (a): “Section 21675 was amended in 2004, effective January 1, 2005, to make technical, nonsubstantive changes. (Stats. 2004, ch. 615, § 4; see also Legisl. Counsel’s Digest, § 2, at p. 91.) We quote the current statutory language.”
2. On page 7 of the opinion filed January 5, 2005 [125 Cal.App.4th 821, advance report, 1st par.], in the second paragraph (beginning “The term ‘project’ . . .”), the quotation from Guidelines, title 14, section 15378, subdivision (a)(1) shall be modified to replace the phrase “resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately” with the phrase “resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.”
3. On page 7 of the opinion filed January 5, 2005 [125 Cal.App.4th 821, advance report, 2d par.], in the third paragraph (beginning “Whether an act constitutes a ‘project’ . . .”), replace the first sentence and citation with the following: “Whether an act constitutes a ‘project’ within the purview of CEQA is an issue of law which can be decided on the undisputed data in the record on appeal and presents no question of deference to agency discretion or review of substantiality of evidence. (Fullerton Joint Union High School Dist. v. State Bd. of Education (1982) 32 Cal.3d 779, 794-795 [187 Cal.Rptr. 398]; Black Property Owners, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 984; see § 21168.5.)”
Page 163b
Respondent’s petition for rehearing filed January 21, 2005 is denied.
The modifications effect no change in the judgment.