Author Archives: Casey Shorrock

FIRST DISTRICT UPHOLDS EIR FOR UC BERKELEY’S WILDFIRE FUEL MANAGEMENT PLAN

General Posted by   

In a partially published opinion Claremont Canyon Conservancy v. Regents of the University of California (2023) 92.Cal.App.5th 474, the First District Court of Appeal held that an EIR for wildfire-driven vegetation removal projects did not need to include a tree inventory or identify the number of or specific trees to be removed to comply with CEQA because the EIR contained sufficient information to analyze environmental impacts and preparing a tree inventory was not reasonably feasible.

Background

The Regents of the University of California, Berkeley worked with a wildland fire manager and fire ecologist to prepare a Wildland Vegetative Fuel Management Plan for an 800-acre fire-prone parcel of land on UC Berkeley’s campus, known as Hill Campus. Hill Campus is heavily forested and located in a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone,” and “has been plagued by wildfires;” beginning in 1905 and most recently in 2017 when the Grizzly Fire burned approximately 24 acres. The Plan proposed several vegetation removal projects, including one fire fuel break project and three fire hazard reduction projects, with the goal of reducing the wildfire risk on Hill Campus. In developing the Plan and selecting the project locations, the Regents relied on fuel models to predict fire behavior, which considered the different vegetation types across Hill Campus. The Plan proposed removing dead, unhealthy or structurally unsound trees; trees that would torch or burn with high fire intensity; and certain understory shrubs.

The Regents prepared an EIR for the Plan, containing both programmatic and project-level review, and certified the Final EIR in early 2021. The EIR identifies objective criteria for tree removal and proposes the principle of “variable density thinning,” which considers site-specific conditions to create gaps in canopy cover to reduce canopy fire spread. The number of and specific trees to be removed would be determined by a certified arborist and registered professional forester by applying these criteria and this principle.

Two organizations, the Claremont Canyon Conservancy and the Hills Conservation Network, filed petitions for writ of mandate challenging the adequacy of the EIR’s description of the vegetation removal projects. After consolidating the cases, the trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, concluding that the EIR’s project descriptions were “not accurate, stable and finite” and only provided “conceptual criteria,” rendering the project descriptions “vague and ambiguous.” The Regents appealed.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

On appeal, Hills and Claremont argued that CEQA required the EIR to identify the specific trees that would remain in the fuel break area and that the EIR’s failure to specify the number of trees that would be removed made it was impossible to evaluate the projects’ environmental impacts; thereby rendering the EIR project description “unclear and unstable” and preventing meaningful comparisons between the plan and the project alternatives. The court disagreed.

The court pointed out that CEQA Guidelines section 15124 requires a project description to include specific information—“the precise location and boundaries of the proposed project on a detailed map; a general description of the proposed project’s objectives, including the project’s underlying purpose; a general description of the project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; and a brief description of the EIR’s intended uses.” The court found that the EIR contained all of the required information. The CEQA Guidelines, the court noted, do not require a project description to “supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact[.]”

The court then noted that, here, where “a project is subject to variable future conditions,” such as “unusual rainy weather, tree growth, impact of pests and diseases, [and] changing natural resources,” a project description must “be sufficiently flexible” to account for those conditions. Hills argued that conditions within the project area would not substantively change in any “unforeseen way.” But, the court found this argument unavailing given the substantial evidence in the record demonstrating otherwise. The court then concluded that as long as an EIR contains sufficient information to enable decision-makers and the public to understand the projects’ environmental consequences it satisfies CEQA’s requirements. Accordingly, the court determined that the EIR “need not specify, on a highly detailed level, the number of trees [to be] removed.” The absence of this information did not violate CEQA because the project’s’ basic characteristics were “accurate, stable and finite,” contrary to the trial court’s determination.

The Regents further contended that it was not reasonably feasible to prepare a tree inventory and so the EIR could not violate CEQA for omitting one. The court agreed, finding sufficient evidence in the record to support this conclusion (steep and rugged terrain of Hill Campus created impediments, high cost associated with an inventory). Because the project area was subject to variable environmental conditions, on-the-ground realities could significantly change between the EIR’s preparation and project implementation, making it impractical to identify specific trees to remove.

Lastly, the court emphasized that “technical perfection, scientific certainty, and exhaustive analysis” are not required of an EIR; rather, it looks at whether the EIR is adequate, complete, and represents a good-faith effort at full disclosure. The court concluded that the EIR “provides sufficient information to understand the projects’ environmental impacts” and “sufficient detail to enable the public to understand the environmental impacts associated with the Regents’ plan to remove vegetation in specific locations on the Hill Campus to reduce wildfire risk.”

The remainder of the opinion disposing of other CEQA claims challenging the EIR’s methodology for wind speed modeling and its analysis of and visual impacts is unpublished.

– Alina Werth

SECOND DISTRICT UPHOLDS CITY OF POMONA’S RELIANCE ON CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 EXEMPTION FOR APPROVAL OF A ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT ALLOWING COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITIES

General Posted by   

In Lucas v. City of Pomona (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 508, the Second District Court of Appeal held that the City of Pomona properly relied on the exemption provided in CEQA Guidelines section 15183 when approving a zoning overlay district allowing commercial cannabis activities on specific parcels located in certain areas within the City.

Background

In the years following the 2016 voter passage of the state’s Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which legalized the cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and sale of nonmedical cannabis and cannabis products, the City of Pomona passed several ordinances in anticipation of allowing cannabis operations within City limits—(i) an ordinance implementing a cannabis business tax; (ii) an ordinance establishing a formal application process to obtain a cannabis business license; and (iii) specifically relevant to the case, an ordinance to develop a commercial cannabis permit program overlay district within existing zoning designations in the City.

To establish this overlay district, constituting a “project” under CEQA, the City underwent a multifaceted process that included the establishment of buffers from sensitive uses such as schools, conducting research and site visits to other cities with legally operating cannabis businesses, meeting with applicable state agencies and the local police department, holding a series of community meetings, and conducting a City-wide parcel-level analysis.

Based on this process, the City determined that a total of six types of commercial cannabis activity could occur with the City—(1) store front retail, (2) manufacturing, (3) cultivation (indoor), (4) testing, (5) distribution, and (6) micro-business. The City prepared a “Determination of Significance” demonstrating that the proposed land uses “are consistent with and similar to already existing land uses” in “the Pomona Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan Update.”  The City also prepared an initial draft overlay map showing 414 parcels where cannabis businesses could be established. The initial map included a parcel owned by petitioner Lucas (which he claimed to have spent two million dollars preparing for operation of a cannabis business), however, the final draft excluded this parcel.

The City then had a third-party consultant prepare a “Findings of Consistency” document, which demonstrated that the project would not “have new or increased significant environmental effects beyond those identified in the 2014 [General Plan Update] EIR” by addressing “each of the environmental issues studied in the 2014 EIR [and] comparing the effects of the proposed project to the effects of the adopted General Plan Update.”

As a result, the City determined that the project qualified for the CEQA streamlining and exemption allowable under CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

At an October 2019 Planning Commission hearing considering the project, Lucas requested that the City reconsider including his property in the overlay district. Other parties opposed the project for different reasons—the nearby cities of La Verne and Walnut requested increased buffers from their City boundaries, as they both prohibited commercial cannabis activity and, in the case of Walnut, questioned CEQA Guidelines section 15183 applicability to the project. The Planning Commission did not recommend project approval to City Council and requested changes to the project.

After the hearing, petitioner and adjacent cities (amongst other commenters) sent correspondence to the City again expressing opposition to the project and making specific requests for changes. The project was thusly amended to create a 600-foot buffer from City boundaries and further remove more than a hundred parcels, leaving 292 parcels eligible for commercial cannabis activities.

In November 2019, the Pomona City Council approved the modified project and adopted the Determination of Significance and Findings of Consistency, and concluded that the project met the requirements in CEQA Guidelines section 15183. The City then filed a Notice of Exemption with the county recorder. The Determination of Significance states that the public has ten days to appeal. No one appealed.

Lucas filed a petition for writ of mandate alleging a CEQA violation for the City’s use of the Guidelines section 15183 exemption for the project. Three weeks before the hearing on the merits, at which the trial court found against petitioner, City voters passed Measure PO, “which adopted a cannabis permit overlay identical to the Project.” A few weeks later, the City Council adopted and ratified Measure PO. Lucas appealed the trial court’s decision, but did not file an appeal or request a court-ordered stay of Measure PO.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

The court bypassed the City’s standing and exhaustion of administrative remedies claims by assuming for sake of argument Lucas prevailed on these procedural issues, and therefore only reviewed the merits of the challenge to the City’s reliance on the CEQA Guidelines section 15183 exemption. The court reviewed this claim under the substantial evidence standard, which, per prevailing caselaw, is proper where an agency determines a project’s consistency with a prior program EIR.

To use the Guideline section 15183 exemption, as noted by the court, a project must be “consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified,” whereas “consistent” means “the density of the proposed project is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the general plan, community plan or zoning action for which an EIR has been certified, and that the project complies with the density-related standards contained in that plan or zoning.”

As to density, Lucas argued that, because the existing zoning contains no density-related standards, there was no way for the project to be deemed consistent. The court disagreed with this “literal approach” and instead concluded that the omission of the “the exact word ‘density’ or exact phrase “density-related standards’” in a zoning ordinance “does not necessarily mean that those topics were not discussed with different verbiage.” Although the court did not illuminate what verbiage in the applicable zoning ordinance might demonstrate density, it did note that the 2014 General Plan Update EIR, the project’s Determination of Similarity, and the project’s Findings of Consistency all addressed land use and/or density. And, importantly, Lucas did not file an appeal of the Determination of Similarity conclusions. Therefore, he was “foreclosed from challenging any of [its] commercial cannabis activities/land findings.”

On the need for additional environmental review, the court again rebuked Lucas’ “literal approach.” The City’s Determination of Similarity deemed the six types of proposed cannabis land uses “similar to already existing land uses, and as such…covered by the uses contemplated by the 2014 EIR and 2013 General Plan Update.” Thus, just because the 2014 General Plan Update EIR did not contain the explicit words “marijuana” or “cannabis” did not mean it did not address that land use. The court likewise denounced Lucas’ argument that the project presents “unique and peculiar impacts associated with cannabis-related business” because, as it noted, the project itself “does not guarantee anyone the automatic right to establish a cannabis-related business,” it merely “imposes an overlay use on existing zoning” that only provides an opportunity to apply for a business permit. The court again relied on the findings in the Determination of Similarity “that cannabis uses were sufficiently similar to existing uses allowed by the underlying zonig” as substantial evidence supporting the City’s determination.

Lastly, Lucas argued that the project’s impacts on “traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use/planning, noise, and public services” did not fall within the scope of the less-than-significant conclusions made in the 2014 General Plan Update EIR. The court addressed each impact area, ultimately concluding that substantial evidence demonstrated that the project would not generate impacts beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR, and that existing mitigation measures and uniform standards applied to the project would reduce or manage any impacts.

Notably, the court found that Lucas’ concern with cannabis cultivation odor was addressed by the City’s municipal code regulating odor control devices. It also found that cultivation-related energy use, which petitioner claimed would result in “‘extraordinary [greenhouse gas emissions] impacts,’” could be dealt with through development standards, similarly to “other uses that could be developed in the Overlay District subareas.” On noise emitted by backup generators used in cannabis operations, the court opined that “[s]urely back-up generators are also utilized by other retail stores or manufacturers in times of a power outage.” And, in response to Lucas’ claim that the project would result in a greater impact on police services than analyzed in the 2014 General Plan Update EIR, the court noted in particular that “[t]he project would not result in the need for additional police protection facilities.”

– Casey Shorrock

SECOND DISTRICT UPHOLDS CITY OF VENTURA’S DETERMINATION THAT A 1989 BRONZE STATUE OF FATHER JUNÍPERO SERRA IS NOT A HISTORIC LANDMARK AND THEREFORE ITS RELOCATION WAS NOT SUBJECT TO CEQA

General Posted by   

In Coalition for Historical Integrity v. City of San Buenaventura (2023) 92.Cal.App.5th 430, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s determination that the City of San Buenaventura, colloquially known as Ventura, acted appropriately and did not violate CEQA when it relocated a statue of Father Junípero Serra.

Background

In the summer of 2020, a bronze statue of Father Junípero Serra, located in downtown Ventura, was the subject of protests and vandalism. In response, the City Council voted to relocate the statue to the San Buenaventura Mission. The bronze statue, which was dedicated in 1989, had replaced a 1936-era concrete statue of Father Junípero Serra that had cracked and was in danger of falling apart.

A citizen’s group, the Coalition for Historical Integrity, challenged the City’s decision to relocate the statue and sought an injunction and restraining order to prevent the removal of the statue. The Coalition argued that the bronze statue was a historic landmark and therefore environmental review under CEQA was necessary. The trial court denied the Coalition’s request for relief and the City subsequently relocated the bronze statue to the mission. The Coalition appealed.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

On appeal, the court held that removal of the bronze statue did not require CEQA review under Public Resources Code section 21084.1 because the “preponderance of the evidence” demonstrated that the statue was not “historically…significant” and likely did not match any definition of historical resources set forth in section 5020.1.

The Coalition first argued that the statue qualified as a historic resource because it was designated as such by the City in 1974. However, as the City countered and the court agreed, it was the original circa 1936 concrete statue that received a historic designation, and not the circa 1989 bronze statue. The Coalition then argued that the City’s historical resources report prepared by a third-party consultant, which found the statue to not be historically significant, did not constitute substantial evidence because it does not provide “participant testimony” and contained no evidence that its author was a qualified expert. The court again disagreed, because “municipal agencies can properly consider and base decisions on evidence that would not be admissible in a court of law” and because the report appeared sufficient. The court further rejected the Coalition’s argument “that section 21084.1 requires the City to find that the statue is ‘no longer’ culturally or historically significant,” noting that “there is no reason why the presumption cannot be rebutted by a finding that the statue was never culturally or historically significant.” Accordingly, the City appropriately determined that the bronze statue was not a historic landmark and thus not subject to CEQA review.

In affirming the City’s decision, the court noted that there is a “40-year-old threshold required for local designation as a historic landmark,” which the bronze statue did not meet. The court also disagreed with the Coalition’s argument that removal of the statue was quasi-judicial and that City Council unlawfully acted with bias and prejudice when deciding to relocate the statue. The court found that City Council was instead acting in a quasi-legislative manner, making a policy decision based on the statue being offensive to some members of the community, rather than a decision based on the criteria of a statute or ordinance. Because the statue was not considered a historic landmark, the court held that code provisions for removing a historic landmark status did not apply.

–  Alina Werth

IN A REVERSAL, SECOND DISTRICT FINDS CITY’S FAILURE TO INCLUDE CEQA EXEMPTION ON MEETING AGENDA VIOLATED THE BROWN ACT

General Posted by   

UPDATE: Review Denied and Ordered Not to be Officially Published as of February 15, 202.

In G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 814, the Second District Court of Appeal determined that the City of Thousand Oaks violated the Brown Act when it voted to adopt a CEQA exemption for a new waste-hauling Franchise Agreement without including the exemption on the meeting agenda at least 72 hours before the meeting.

Background

In 2020, the City of Thousand Oaks considered entering into a 15-year franchise agreement with Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Athens Services, to provide solid waste management for the City. On March 4, 2021, the City posted an agenda for a March 9, 2021, City Council meeting, with an item to consider staff’s recommendation to approve the Athens franchise agreement. There was no indication on the agenda that the City also would consider finding the agreement exempt from CEQA.

On the day of the March 9th meeting, the City posted a supplemental agenda item and information packet with staff’s recommendation that the City find the agreement categorically exempt from CEQA under the Class 1 exemption for existing facilities, the Class 7 exemption for actions by regulatory agencies for the protection of the natural resources, and the so-called “common sense” exemption. At the meeting, the City attorney recommended adopting staff’s finding supporting the CEQA exemption. The City Council then moved to adopt a motion to approve the franchise agreement. At the suggestion of the Mayor, the Council amended the motion to also include the corresponding CEQA exemptions. The meeting minutes indicated that council took separate actions in approving the agreement and finding it exempt from CEQA.

The City filed a notice of exemption (NOE) on March 15, 2021. Thereafter, Waste Management sent a “cure and correct” letter asserting the City violated the Brown Act by voting to “adopt” the NOE before approving the franchise agreement. The City did not respond to the letter within 30 days, thus was deemed to not have cured or corrected the challenged action pursuant to Brown Act section 54960.1(c)(3). Waste Management filed a petition challenging the approval of the franchise agreement and exemption determination. Respondents filed a demurrer, which the trial court sustained without leave to amend. And, although it agreed with Waste Management that the CEQA exemption determination and franchise agreement approval were separate items of business, ruled that CEQA does not require a public hearing for an exemption determination, therefore, the Brown Act did not apply. Waste Management appealed.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal first held that the factual allegations in Waste Management’s petition were sufficient to state a Brown Act claim. Under the Brown Act, at least 72 hours prior to a regular meeting, the legislative body of a local agency must post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted. (See Gov. Code § 54954.2, subd. (a)(1).) The agenda must provide the public with an opportunity to address the legislative body on any item of interest, effectively barring the agency from acting on any item that does not appear on the agenda.

The City argued that the CEQA exemption did not need to be on the agena because it was not a separate item of business within the meaning of the Brown Act. Rather, the City argued, it adopted the CEQA exemption only as a component of the agenda item awarding the franchise agreement to Athens. The court rejected this argument and cited San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1167, which, although involving the adoption of a mitigated negative declaration (MND), the court determined applied here. The court reasoned that, because members of the public are entitled to have notice of, and an opportunity to participate in, a local agency’s determination that an MND should be issued, they are also entitled to participate when an agency determines a project is exempt from CEQA.

The Second District noted that applying the Brown Act’s notice requirements do not alter an agency’s existing obligations under CEQA, which does not require public noticing of exemptions to CEQA. Rather, the Act requires only that the exemption, if it is to be discussed at a meeting of a local legislative body, must be placed on the meeting agenda so that the public be provided an opportunity for comment.

The City had argued that applying the Brown Act to a CEQA exemption determination would place an intolerable burden on local agencies. The court disagreed. According to the court, where an agency’s legislative body intends to vote on or discuss a CEQA exemption at a regular meeting, “it will require minimal effort to include it as an agenda item.” And while the agency may delegate some responsibility to staff before rendering a decision, the court cautioned that agencies cannot delegate its entire duty as the final decisionmaker on a project—i.e., approving an exemption—to avoid its Brown Act obligations. Accordingly, the court concluded that “[t]he addition of words to the agenda indicating the local agency is considering a project subject to staff determination of CEQA exemption will not unduly tax a local agency’s resources.”

The Second District also rejected the City’s claim that Waste Management’s “cure and correct” letter, pursuant to Brown Act section 54960.1(b)), was deficient because it stated the City “adopted,” rather than “filed,” an NOE. Section 54960.1(b) requires a prospective litigant to state, in writing, the nature of the alleged violation. The court determined that Waste Management’s letter satisfied this obligation because it informed the City that it violated section 54954.2 by considering the CEQA exemption without describing the action in the agenda for at least 72 hours before the meeting. That the letter stated the City had “adopted” an NOE, versus using the proper term filing, was immaterial—the letter adequately stated the substantive point in regards to the Brown Act violation. The court reiterated that the purpose of the section is to notify the local agency of its alleged violation so that it can cure it to avoid litigation; its purpose is “not to allow a local agency to avoid the consequences of Brown Act violations by launching nit-picking technical attacks on the language use in the cure and correct letter.”

By Bridget McDonald

*RMM represented Petitioner G.I. Industries (aka, Waste Management) in this litigation.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

IN A REVERSAL, SECOND DISTRICT FINDS CITY’S FAILURE TO INCLUDE CEQA EXEMPTION ON MEETING AGENDA VIOLATED THE BROWN ACT

General Posted by   

In G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks (2022) __ Cal.App.5th __ (Case No. B317201), the Second District Court of Appeal determined that the City of Thousand Oaks violated the Brown Act when it voted to adopt a CEQA exemption for a new waste-hauling Franchise Agreement without including the exemption on the meeting agenda at least 72 hours before the meeting.

Background

In 2020, the City of Thousand Oaks considered entering into a 15-year franchise agreement with Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Athens Services, to provide solid waste management for the City. On March 4, 2021, the City posted an agenda for a March 9, 2021, City Council meeting, with an item to consider staff’s recommendation to approve the Athens franchise agreement. There was no indication on the agenda that the City also would consider finding the agreement exempt from CEQA.

On the day of the March 9th meeting, the City posted a supplemental agenda item and information packet with staff’s recommendation that the City find the agreement categorically exempt from CEQA under the Class 1 exemption for existing facilities, the Class 7 exemption for actions by regulatory agencies for the protection of the natural resources, and the so-called “common sense” exemption. At the meeting, the City attorney recommended adopting staff’s finding supporting the CEQA exemption. The City Council then moved to adopt a motion to approve the franchise agreement. At the suggestion of the Mayor, the Council amended the motion to also include the corresponding CEQA exemptions. The meeting minutes indicated that council took separate actions in approving the agreement and finding it exempt from CEQA.

The City filed a notice of exemption (NOE) on March 15, 2021. Thereafter, Waste Management sent a “cure and correct” letter asserting the City violated the Brown Act by voting to “adopt” the NOE before approving the franchise agreement. The City did not respond to the letter within 30 days, thus was deemed to not have cured or corrected the challenged action pursuant to Brown Act section 54960.1(c)(3). Waste Management filed a petition challenging the approval of the franchise agreement and exemption determination. Respondents filed a demurrer, which the trial court sustained without leave to amend. And, although it agreed with Waste Management that the CEQA exemption determination and franchise agreement approval were separate items of business, ruled that CEQA does not require a public hearing for an exemption determination, therefore, the Brown Act did not apply. Waste Management appealed.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal first held that the factual allegations in Waste Management’s petition were sufficient to state a Brown Act claim. Under the Brown Act, at least 72 hours prior to a regular meeting, the legislative body of a local agency must post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted. (See Gov. Code § 54954.2, subd. (a)(1).) The agenda must provide the public with an opportunity to address the legislative body on any item of interest, effectively barring the agency from acting on any item that does not appear on the agenda.

The City argued that the CEQA exemption did not need to be on the agena because it was not a separate item of business was not a separate item of business within the meaning of the Brown Act. Rather, the City argued, it adopted the CEQA exemption only as a component of the agenda item awarding the franchise agreement to Athens. The court rejected this argument and cited San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1167, which, although involving the adoption of a mitigated negative declaration (MND), the court determined applied here. The court reasoned that, because members of the public are entitled to have notice of, and an opportunity to participate in, a local agency’s determination that an MND should be issued, they are also entitled to participate when an agency determines a project is exempt from CEQA.

The Second District noted that applying the Brown Act’s notice requirements do not alter an agency’s existing obligations under CEQA, which does not require public noticing of exemptions to CEQA. Rather, the Act requires only that the exemption, if it is to be discussed at a meeting of a local legislative body, must be placed on the meeting agenda so that the public be provided an opportunity for comment.

The City had argued that applying the Brown Act to a CEQA exemption determination would place an intolerable burden on local agencies. The court disagreed. According to the court, where an agency’s legislative body intends to vote on or discuss a CEQA exemption at a regular meeting, “it will require minimal effort to include it as an agenda item.” And while the agency may delegate some responsibility to staff before rendering a decision, the court cautioned that agencies cannot delegate its entire duty as the final decisionmaker on a project—i.e., approving an exemption—to avoid its Brown Act obligations. Accordingly, the court concluded that “[t]he addition of words to the agenda indicating the local agency is considering a project subject to staff determination of CEQA exemption will not unduly tax a local agency’s resources.”

The Second District also rejected the City’s claim that Waste Management’s “cure and correct” letter, pursuant to Brown Act section 54960.1(b)), was deficient because it stated the City “adopted,” rather than “filed,” an NOE. Section 54960.1(b) requires a prospective litigant to state, in writing, the nature of the alleged violation. The court determined that Waste Management’s letter satisfied this obligation because it informed the City that it violated section 54954.2 by considering the CEQA exemption without describing the action in the agenda for at least 72 hours before the meeting. That the letter stated the City had “adopted” an NOE, versus using the proper term filing, was immaterial—the letter adequately stated the substantive point in regards to the Brown Act violation. The court reiterated that the purpose of the section is to notify the local agency of its alleged violation so that it can cure it to avoid litigation; its purpose is “not to allow a local agency to avoid the consequences of Brown Act violations by launching nit-picking technical attacks on the language use in the cure and correct letter.”

By Bridget McDonald

*RMM represented Petitioner G.I. Industries (aka, Waste Management) in this litigation.

THIRD DISTRICT UPHOLDS EIR FOR EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT’S “UPPER MAIN DITCH” WATER TRANSMISSION PIPELINE PROJECT

General Posted by   

In a February 16, 2022 decision, the Third District Court of Appeal in Save the El Dorado Canal v. El Dorado Irrigation District (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 239, upheld the District’s approval of the Blair Road Alternative for the Upper Main Ditch piping project by finding that substantial evidence supported the District’s determination that the project and alternative would have less-than-significant impacts, and rejected petitioner challenges to the EIR’s project description, hydrological, biological, and wildfire impact analyses.

Background

The El Dorado Irrigation District operates a primarily surface-water system in El Dorado County, with more than 1,250 miles of pipe and 27 miles of earthen ditches that connect the system’s facilities and treatment plants. The Upper Main Ditch (UMD) is the system’s main conveyance feature consisting of a three-mile open and unlined ditch that connects the system’s Forebay Reservoir to its Reservoir 1 Water Treatment Plant (WTP). In June 2015, the District proposed to convert the UMD to a buried 42-inch pipeline that spanned the length of the existing ditch. The upstream end of the new pipeline would connect to the Reservoir and the downstream end would connect to a new metering and inlet structure at the WTP. The District would backfill around the pipe and reshape the ditch to allow for the passage of stormwater flows up to the current 10-year storm event capacity. Ultimately, the project would conserve more water by reducing seepage and evaporation, and improve water quality by reducing contaminant infiltration.

The District considered three alternatives, and ultimately approved the Blair Road Alternative, which would also convert the UMD into a buried pipeline but would instead place the pipe across District-owned property from the Reservoir to Blair Road, where it would continue until it reached the UMD crossing, then travel across private property to the WTP. The Blair Road Alternative would involve less construction activity near residents that the project and require the removal of fewer trees. It would also reduce the number of easements across private property.

In June 2018, the District circulated the draft EIR, which described the location of the UMD and the Blair Road Alternative’s setting and noted that, should it be adopted, the District would no longer use the existing ditch—instead reverting the land back to private landowners. After an extended public comment period, the District issued the final EIR in January 2019. After which, in April 2019, the Board of Directors certified the final EIR and approved the Blair Road Alternative. The Boar determined that, although the original project would achieve the desired objectives, it would have greater potential impacts to residents along the ditch from the resulting construction and eminent domain proceedings than the Alternative.

Thereafter, Save the El Dorado Canal filed a petition for writ of mandate alleging the approval and certification violated CEQA. The trial court denied each of Petitioner’s ten contentions. Petitioner timely appealed.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

On appeal, Petitioner re-alleged that the action violated CEQA because the EIR contained an inaccurate project description and failed to adequately analyze potential impacts to hydrology, biological resources, and wildfire hazards. Under an abuse of discretion standard, the Third District Court of Appeal rejected each claim, finding that substantial evidence supported the District’s determination and Petitioner failed to demonstrate otherwise.

Petitioner first alleged the EIR failed to adequately describe the project by omitting the “crucial fact” that the ditch that would soon be abandoned was the “only drainage system” for the watershed. Notwithstanding Petitioner’s “problematic” briefing errors, the court rejected this argument and found instead that the EIR provided a detailed description of the UMD’s size, history, and location, and explained how the UMD passively intercepts stormwater runoff that would otherwise naturally flow down slope. For the Blair Road Alternative, the EIR explained that the ditch would continue to passively receive and convey stormwater flows during storm events, even after the District abandoned its maintenance easement over it. The court concluded this was an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure about the ditch and its relationship to the watershed’s drainage system, as well as the District’s intent to abandon the ditch should it adopt the Blair Road Alternative.

Petitioner then claimed the EIR inappropriately concluded that the Blair Road Alternative would not significantly impact watershed drainage because abandonment would permit “the underlying property owners to do with [the ditch] as they please.” Citing a comment letter submitted by the County, Petitioner claimed the EIR failed to mitigate foreseeable impacts to watershed drainage that would result from vegetation and debris clogging the abandoned ditch. The court disagreed. It found that the final EIR’s response explained that private action or inaction will ensure the abandoned ditch retains its current capacity to convey stormwater across private property thereby reducing any risk of significant flooding. Moreover, unlike the District, the County can regulate private fill activities via administrative and civil penalties to ensure such activities do not yield significant environmental effects. Thus, it would be too speculative to predict landowners’ particular actions or inactions and the ensuing potential effects to the ditch’s stormwater conveyance capacity.

Petitioner next alleged the EIR failed to mitigate impacts to riparian habitats and sensitive natural communities and conflicted with local resource protection ordinances. The court noted that the Blair Road Alternative would yield fewer potential impacts to biological resources because the pipeline would be laid in an existing road corridor that is devoid of natural riparian habitat. Because the affected waterbody is not naturally occurring, plant and wildlife species are not dependent on water in the current ditch. Nevertheless, any impacts to vegetation communities—including those resulting from tree removal—would be mitigated to less than significant levels through permit compliance. The Alternative would therefore be consistent with the General Plan’s biological resources management plan, the County’s tree mortality removal plan, and CALFIRE’s tree removal procedures.

The court was also unpersuaded by Petitioner’s claim that the EIR failed to adequately analyze and mitigate impacts to tree mortality. Relying on facts and expert opinion, the EIR explained that trees surrounding the project site are not native riparian species, and thus, not dependent on water conveyed through the ditch. To the contrary, most of the adjacent tree species are stress-tolerant and can withstand climatic variation and changes in water seepage. The court also found that because both the project and Alternative were specifically designed to avoid Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS), and that, in any event, mitigation would alleviate any impacts, regulatory requirements associated with WOTUS were met.

Lastly, the court rejected Petitioner’s contention that the EIR failed to adequately consider the project’s fire risks by only considering construction-related impacts. Petitioner asserted the project would have potentially significant impacts by removing a water source that could be used as a firefighting tool. The court disagreed by noting that the EIR specifically debunked Petitioner’s claim—the ditch supplies potable drinking water only, and water from the ditch has never been used to fight fires. Indeed, CAL FIRE’s Strategic Fire Plan did not identify the UMD as a potential firefighting resource.

– Bridget McDonald[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Changes to State Clearinghouse Document Submission Process (AB 819) Effective January 1, 2022

General Posted by   

On January 1, 2022, Assembly Bill (AB) 819 (Levine, 2021), signed into law on July 16, 2021, takes effect and changes several CEQA communication, noticing, and filing requirements. Most notably, Public Resources Code section 21082.1(c)(4) now requires electronic submissions of draft environmental documents to the State Clearinghouse for all projects subject to CEQA review, regardless of whether the agency is a lead, responsible, or trustee agency or if the project is of sufficient statewide, regional, or areawide environmental significance. Documents include environmental impact reports (EIRs), negative declarations (NDs), and mitigated negative declarations (MNDs).

Other notable changes:

  • Public Resources Code section 21092.2(d) requires that all lead agencies post CEQA-related notices on their websites, “if any.”
  • Public Resources Code section 21092.3 requires notices of preparation (NOPs) and notices of availability for review (NOAs) to be posted on the county clerk’s website.
  • Public Resources Code section 21108(d) now requires electronic filing of all notices of determination (NODs) and notices of exemption (NOEs) with the State Clearinghouse for which the lead agency is a state agency.
  • Public Resources Code section 21161 requires all notices of completion (NOCs) to be filed electronically with the State Clearinghouse; mailed copes are no longer required.

All document submitters must be registered in OPR’s “CEQA Submit” to upload and submit documents and notices. For instructions on how to register and electronically submit documents, visit: http://opr.ca.gov/sch/document-submission.html.

For the State’s technical advisory on AB 819, visit: http://opr.ca.gov/sch/docs/20211202-Submitting_CEQA_Docs_to_the_SCH_Under_AB_819.pdf.

FIRST DISTRICT UPHOLDS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD’S RELIANCE ON CEQA’s MINISTERIAL EXEMPTION FOR REGISTRATION OF APPROPRIATION OF WATER FOR DOMESTIC USE UNDER THE WATER RIGHTS PERMITTING REFORM ACT

General Posted by   

In Mission Peak v. State Water Resources Control Board (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 873, the First District Court of Appeal held that the State Water Resources Control Board’s (Board’s) registration process is ministerial and therefore exempt from CEQA.

Background

The Water Rights Permitting Reform Act of 1988 permits eligible persons to acquire a right to appropriate up to 10 acre-feet per year of  water for domestic or other specified uses by completing a registration process with the Board. Pursuant to this Act, the State Water Resources Control Board granted a small domestic use registration to two Alameda County property owners without conducting environmental review on the premise that the action was ministerial and thereby did not trigger CEQA.

Mission Peak Conservancy and Kelly Abreau (collectively, Mission Peak) sued the Board, alleging that it violated CEQA by approving the registration without conducting CEQA review. Mission Peak contended that the Board’s approval was discretionary and that it should have denied the registration because the property owners did not qualify for small domestic use and also because their registration form contained false information. The Board filed a demurrer, which the trial court sustained without leave to amend. Mission Peak appealed.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal determined that the Board’s registration process was indeed a ministerial act, not discretionary, and was therefore exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080, subdivision (b)(1). As the court explained, “[m]inisterial projects involve ‘little or no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project.’ (Guidelines, § 15369.) . . . The test is whether the law governing the agency’s decision to approve the project gives it authority to require changes that would lessen the project’s environmental effects.”

The court determined the Board did not have such authority here. Although the Board has statutory authority to impose general conditions applicable to all registrations, it did not have authority “to place conditions on the . . . registration to lessen its environmental effects.” The Board determines whether a registration is compliant by applying a checklist of fixed criteria, and the registration is automatically deemed complete if it meets these criteria. Accordingly, there is no discretion involved in the registration, and it is therefore not subject to CEQA.

Specifically, the Court rejected Mission Peak’s argument that “a different agency, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has discretion to impose conditions that could ameliorate the project’s environmental impacts” and therefore the the process is discretionary. Not so. As the court explained, another agency’s discretionary authority for its review cannot be imputed to the Board. Mission Peak then argued that “the project did not satisfy the requirements for a small domestic use registration because the [applicant] misrepresented facts,” and thereby the Board did have discretion in that it could deny the project or request changes to meet program requirements. But, “the test is whether the Board had the legal authority to impose environmentally beneficial changes as conditions of the project,” not whether the agency could request changes on an application or deny it.  Lastly, Mission Peak argued that the Board violated CEQA because the project did not meet program requirements. The court pointed out that “this is simply an argument that the Board made an erroneous ministerial decisions.” And such an error is not the basis for a CEQA claim. Plainly stated, “CEQA does not regulate ministerial decisions—full stop.”

– Veronika S. Morrison

SIXTH DISTRICT HOLDS COASTAL COMMISSION VIOLATED CEQA BY FAILING TO COMPLETE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PRIOR TO PROJECT APPROVAL

General Posted by   

In Friends, Artists, and Neighbors of Elkhorn Slough v. California Coastal Commission (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 666, the Sixth District Court of Appeal held that the California Coastal Commission (CCC) violated CEQA by analyzing a coastal development permit’s environmental impacts and adopting findings in support thereof after it had approved the permit and underlying project. Although the CCC is authorized to issue “revised findings” when the Commission’s action differs from what was proposed in the staff report, the court held that the revised findings in this case went too far and were an improper pot-hoc rationalization.

Background

In 2000, Real Party in Interest Heritage/Western Communities, Ltd., applied to the County of Monterey for a combined development permit and coastal development permit (CDP) for the Rancho Los robles Subdivision. The project proposed more than 100 residential units on a commercial parcel. Monterey County prepared an EIR containing several alternatives, including one with a reduced number of units.

In 2008, the County Planning Commission recommended denying the project due to water supply and traffic congestion issues. Heritage/Western appealed the denial to the County Board of Supervisors. The Board disagreed with the Planning Commission and approved the project. The Board also certified the EIR and adopted a statement of overriding considerations regarding significant and avoidable impacts to traffic, groundwater, and seawater intrusion.

In 2009, Friends, Artists, and Neighbors of Elkhorn Slough (FANS) appealed the Board’s decision to the CCC, alongside two Coastal Commissioners. CCC staff issued a staff report recommending denial of the CDP primarily due to lack of adequate water supply. The staff report concluded further analysis for certain issues was unwarranted in light of staff’s recommendation to deny the permit.

On November 8, 2017, the CCC held a de novo hearing and voted to approve the CDP, despite staff recommending denial.

In August 2018, CCC staff issued a subsequent report, containing revised findings in support of the CCC’s approval of the CDP. The 2018 report concluded that water supply was no longer an issue that necessitated denying the project. The 2018 staff report also considered other impacts previously identified in the 2017 report and determined they were no longer relevant or significant, and that staff’s prior conditions of approval would still apply to the project but be adjusted where necessary and implemented in a manner consistent with the project as approved by the Commission. Finally, the report concluded that the project was consistent with CEQA because it adequately addressed any potential adverse impacts to coastal resources, and there were no additional feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would substantially lessen adverse impacts. The CCC approved the revised findings at a public hearing on September 13, 2018, approximately ten months after the CDP was approved.

FANS filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the CCC’s approval of the CDP. The trial court denied the petition, rejecting FANS’ assertion that the CCC violated CEQA by approving the project without conducting environmental review before making findings. FANS appealed.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

On appeal, FANS asserted that the CCC failed to employ the proper procedures required by CEQA and the Coastal Act because its “revised findings” were a post-hoc rationalization for the CCC’s prior decision to approve the project and went beyond what was permitted by the CCC’s regulations. The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed the trial court.

The Court of Appeal outlined the steps for seeking CCC review of an approved CDP application and noted that the Commission’s de novo review of a permit application mimics CEQA’s environmental review process. The analysis and recommendation in a staff report must be accompanied by specific findings regarding—among other factors—the project’s conformity with the Coastal Act and CEQA. If the CCC’s action on the project substantially differs from staff’s recommendation, the prevailing Commissioners must separately state the basis to allow staff to prepare a revised staff report with proposed revised findings that reflect the action taken by the Commissioners. Under section 13096 of the CCC’s regulations, a public hearing must be held before the revised findings are adopted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 13, § 13096, subd. (c).) After the hearing, the CCC must vote on whether to adopt the revised findings.

Based on the facts of the case, the court held that the CCC’s environmental review for the CDP was incomplete at the time of approval, and the revised finding did not make up for the shortcoming. The court determined that the CCC’s decision to approve the project relied on a staff report that failed to contain elements required by CEQA (and the Commission’s certified regulatory program), including project alternatives, feasible mitigation measures to substantially lessen significant adverse effects, and conditions of approval.

In reaching its conclusion, the court explained the importance of these factors: “Requiring specific findings about alternatives and mitigation measures ‘ensures there is evidence of the public agency’s actual consideration of alternatives and mitigation measures, and reveals to citizens the analytical process by which the public agency arrived at its decision.’ [Citation.]” (Opinion, p. 32.) Through this lens, the court clarified that section 13096 “requires commissioners to set forth the analytic route between the evidence and the action at the hearing before approval.” The court further observed that no prior case law involved facts similar to this one, where the CCC’s environmental analysis was this incomplete at the time a CDP was approved. Accordingly, the court found that the CCC abused its discretion because it was required to conduct the analysis before it approved the project.

– Bridget McDonald

12