Author Archives: Veronika Morrison

Third District Upholds the Department of Water Resources’ Long-Term Extensions of State Water Project Contracts under CEQA, the Delta Reform Act, and the Public Trust Doctrine

General Posted by   

In Planning and Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (Cal. Ct. App., Jan. 5, 2024, No. C096304), the Third District Court of Appeal upheld an EIR prepared by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) for DWR’s approval of amendments to long-term water supply contracts with local water agencies receiving State Water Project (SWP) water. These contract amendments extended the terms of the SWP water supply contracts to 2085 and expanded DWR’s ability to use revenue bonds. In a victory for DWR and the SWP water contractors, the court upheld DWR’s EIR against an array of CEQA challenges. The court also rejected the petitioners’ claims that the amendments violated other legal requirements, including the Delta Reform Act, the Public Trust Doctrine, and the Burns-Porter Act.

By way of background, in the 1960s, DWR and 29 local government contractors entered into long-term (75-year) contracts granting the contractors rights to a portion of water from the SWP in exchange for the local agencies’ financial obligations. Each contract includes a table, “Table A,” that specifies the maximum annual water allocation, although full delivery is not guaranteed and often amounts to about half the Table A amount.

The contracts include an “evergreen clause” that allows the contractors to opt for continued service beyond the contract’s expiration by giving advanced notice. Several contractors exercised this option, leading to negotiations for long-term extensions of the contracts. The negotiations aimed to address the “debt compression problem,” where the impending contract termination limited bond maturity to 17 years, increasing the repayment costs. DWR and the contractors reached an agreement in principle to extend the contracts to 2085, which would allow for longer-term bond funding for essential capital upgrades and repairs. They also agreed to a revenue bond amendment that updates the definition of water system facilities to include post-1987 repairs and approved capital projects.

DWR prepared an EIR for the proposed amendments. The EIR concluded that the amendments would not cause environmental impacts because they would not alter the existing authority to build or modify SWP facilities, change water allocations, or create new water management measures.

After certifying the EIR, DWR filed a validation action to validate the amendments. Thereafter, several conservation groups and public agencies brought legal challenges the EIR and the validation action. The trial court ruled in favor of DWR and the petitioners appealed.

CEQA

DWR properly assumed the existence of the current contracts in the EIR’s environmental baseline.

The petitioners argued that the EIR’s impact analysis was based on an improper baseline because the baseline included the current water contracts. The court explained that to determine whether a project’s environmental impacts are significant, the agency must compare the project against existing environmental conditions—the baseline. When a project involves ongoing activities or the extension of past activities, the current levels of use and their physical impacts are part of the baseline.

The court explained that this rule is applicable to renewing permits or approvals for existing facilities, even if those facilities had not been previously assessed under CEQA. Accordingly, the court held that DWR appropriately included the existing contract conditions in the environmental baseline. DWR was not required to use a hypothetical baseline “that imagines a world” without the contracts.

DWR did not improperly piecemeal the Project in excluding a Delta conveyance facility from the project definition.

The petitioners argued that the EIR’s analysis was inadequate because it failed to consider related projects – including a future Delta conveyance facility, such as the previously proposed “California WaterFix” project – as part of the proposal, leading to an overly narrow project description and improper piecemealing.

The court explained that CEQA requires an environmental analysis to consider the whole of an action affecting the environment. An agency may not divide a larger project into smaller segments, which might individually have minimal environmental impacts but could collectively result in significant environmental damage. Further, as held in Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 (Laurel Heights I), an EIR must analyze the environmental effects of any future expansions or actions that are a foreseeable consequence of the initial project and might alter its scope or environmental effects.

The petitioners argued that the trial court relied too heavily on the Laurel Heights I criteria, asserting that a broader “related to” test should apply and that actions that are close in time and location must be considered part of a larger project. The court rejected the petitioners’ argument, explaining that later opinions have confined such reasonings to situations in which a project legally necessitates or assumes the completion of another action, a situation that was not present here.

The court next explained that the courts have interpreted Laurel Heights I variously, with some concluding that a project is part of a larger project under CEQA if it is a “crucial element” of a larger project, such as when one project cannot proceed without the other. Other courts have held that there may be piecemealing when the project at issue is a first step or a catalyst toward another project. On the other hand, there is no piecemealing when the projects can be implemented independently.

Here, DWR properly treated the contract amendments as a stand-alone project, distinct from a future Delta conveyance facility. The record demonstrated that the amendments have separate, independent purposes from a Delta conveyance, such as addressing the bond compression issue. While the amendments may possibly aid in financing a conveyance facility, they serve broader purposes and address other challenges. Moreover, the record showed that there is considerable uncertainty as to whether a Delta conveyance facility would ever be approved or constructed. In light of these factors, DWR was not required to treat a potential, uncertain Delta conveyance as part of the same project as the contract amendments.

DWR did not need to assess the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of projects that would benefit from the amendments’ bond funding.

The petitioners argued that the EIR should have evaluated the direct and indirect impacts of enabling a Delta conveyance project. The court found that this argument suffered from the same flaws as the petitioners’ piecemealing argument: the possibility of a Delta conveyance in the future is too speculative in terms of both its timing and scale. Lead agencies are not required to speculate about potential impacts.

The petitioners also argued that DWR should have evaluated the impacts of other capital projects financed by the amendments, such as the Oroville hydroelectric license project. Petitioners, however, failed to properly present this argument by failing to discuss these other projects or explain why their effects should be considered impacts of the amendments. Moreover, the argument was baseless. The EIR clarified that the amendments would support a variety of long-term capital projects. According to the petitioners’ logic, DWR would be obligated to predict the impacts of all of these projects in the EIR for the amendments, an expectation that is unreasonable. Further, the court noted, projects that are merely governmental funding mechanisms or fiscal activities that do not commit to any specific project that could have environmental effects are not subject to CEQA. Although these capital projects may be part of DWR’s overall plans for the SWP, their connections to the amendments is too tenuous: the amendments do not commit DWR to these projects and do not authorize revenue bonds for any of them (which would require a separate approval).

The EIR’s project description complied with CEQA and was not misleading or inconsistent.

The petitioners asserted – and the court rejected – three arguments regarding the EIR’s project description. First, the petitioners argued that depicting the Delta conveyance facility as a separate project in the EIR conflicted with statements made in earlier environmental review documents. The petitioners cited various documents to support this assertion, but failed to explain how these documents substantiated their position. Moreover, the court’s examination of the cited documents did not reveal any inconsistencies.

Second, the petitioners argued that identifying the 2085 extension date in the EIR was misleading and inaccurate because the EIR did not reveal DWR’s expectation of successive contract extensions under the existing contracts’ evergreen clauses. But petitioners failed to support this argument with any analysis or authority. Furthermore, the record demonstrated that there are clear differences between applying the evergreen clause to individual contracts and achieving a long-term extension for all contractors.

Third, the petitioners argued that the EIR incorrectly stated that the amendments would not change the authority under the current contracts to construct new or modify existing facilities. They argued that the amendments would remove limitations on revenue bond eligibility for new facilities, potentially financing new or expanded facilities. The court rejected this argument as inconsistent with the EIR’s project description, which made these facts plain by explaining that the amendments would offer enhanced funding mechanism that could fund new or expanded facilities.

The petitioners failed to show that the EIR’s range of alternatives was unreasonable.

CEQA requires an EIR to identify and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives that could achieve most of the project’s basic objectives while avoiding or significantly reducing its adverse environmental effects. DWR’s objectives for the amendments included financing the SWP past 2035, maintaining funding reserves, simplifying the billing process, and improving financial coordination between DWR and the contractors. In addition to a no-project alternative, the EIR analyzed seven alternatives, including different contract extension lengths with or without financial amendments, bond sales extending beyond the current contract expiration, and a scenario where not all contractors agreed to the amendments. Two additional alternatives were considered, but rejected from further consideration in the EIR: reducing the “Table A” amounts and implementing new water conservation provisions.

The petitioners argued that DWR’s selection of alternatives violated CEQA in three ways. First, in a single-sentence argument, the petitioners asserted that the alternatives were not sufficiently different to constitute a reasonable range. The court summarily rejected this argument because the petitioners failed to provide any authority or analysis to support it. It was incumbent on the petitioners to show that the range of alternatives were manifestly unreasonable or identify evidence of a least one potentially feasible alternative that would meet most of the basic objectives while reducing the project’s impacts. The petitioners’ one-sentence statement did not satisfy this burden.

Second, the petitioners argued that the revenue bond amendment creates financial risk and that the EIR should have analyzed an alternative that excludes that amendment. The court rejected this argument, explaining that CEQA is not a statute for economic protection, and economic impacts alone do not qualify as significant environmental impacts. Moreover, the no-project and the extension-only alternative evaluated in the EIR sufficiently covered the exclusion of the revenue bond amendment.

Third, the petitioners challenged DWR’s rejection of alternatives to reduce Table A amounts and to implement new water conservation measures, arguing that these alternatives would reduce environmental effects and would align with other state laws and policies. The court rejected this argument, explaining that agencies are not required to analyze alternatives that would solve broader problems or add complex issues that the agencies had chosen not to address. Here, DWR deliberately limited the EIR’s scope to financial issues related to the SWP contracts and made a reasoned decision to exclude Table A amounts from the project’s scope. DWR was not required to analyze alternatives that address bigger issues than the problems DRW is trying to address.

DWR properly defined the no-project alternative as the water contracts proceeding without the amendments, rather than termination of the contracts.

An EIR is required to evaluate a “no project” alternative; the purpose of this requirement is to compare the environmental impacts of not approving the project with those that would occur if the project is approved. Here, the EIR’s no-project alternative assumed that operations and financing of the SWP would continue under existing contracts until December 31, 2035, with contract terms potentially extended beyond this date through the evergreen clause. Under this scenario, water services would continue beyond 2035 in line current financial terms, no bonds would be sold with maturity dates past 2035, and the debt compression issue would worsen. The EIR concluded that this alternative, like the amendments, would not lead to direct physical environmental impacts because it would not introduce new water management measures, change DWR’s authority to build or modify facilities, or alter water allocation in the existing contracts.

The petitioners argued that DWR should have considered, as the no-project alternative, a scenario in which the contracts are allowed to expire. According to the petitioners, relying on the evergreen clause as part of the no-project alternative is inappropriate because: (i) application of the evergreen clause might itself be a project; (ii) the evergreen clause does not guarantee an extension of all contract provisions; and (iii) the evergreen clause does not account for other future changes to the SWP that DWR has acknowledged. The petitioners further asserted that DWR’s analysis blurred the distinction between the no-project scenario and the amendments, thereby failing to provide a clear and factual analysis of maintaining the status quo.

The court rejected these arguments. The court explained that the analysis of the no-project alternative must consider current conditions and what can reasonably be expected in the foreseeable future if the project is not approved. In reviewing a no-project alternative, the court’s focus narrowly on whether the EIR adequately describes existing condition and offers a plausible vision of the foreseeable future. Here, DWR’s no-project met these standards. Given the long history of the SWP and its critical role in supplying water to the state, as well as the long-term investments of the contractors in the SWP, DWR was not required to treat termination of the contracts as the no-project alternative.

Petitioners failed to demonstrate that recirculation of the EIR was required.

CEQA requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR for further public review and comments when the agency introduces “significant new information” to the EIR before its certification. The court held that petitioners failed to meet that burden by failing to provide any facts or analysis of the information added to the EIR was “significant” within the meaning of CEQA.

The petitioners further claimed that recirculation was required because DWR added additional information regarding the rejected “Table A amount reduction” alternative in the final EIR. The court explained, however, that the added discussion was not “significant” because it did not reveal any new environmental impact or an increase in the severity of an impact, and did not deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse effect or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the project’s proponents declined to implement. Rather, the additional information added to the final EIR served only to clarify and amplify the conclusions of the draft EIR, and therefore did not trigger recirculation.

Delta Reform Act

Under the Delta Reform Act, any state agency planning to undertake a “covered action” must first certify in writing that the action is consistent with the Delta Plan. This certification, including detailed findings, must be submitted to the Delta Stewardship Council before the covered action is implemented. (Water Code, § 85225.) A “covered action” is defined in Water Code section 85075.5 as a plan, program, or project that meets certain criteria and is not exempt.

Here, DWR determined that the amendments were not a covered action and therefore did not prepare a certification of consistency with the Delta Plan. The petitioners, in contrast, asserted that the amendments constituted a covered action. The court agreed with DWR that the amendments were not a covered action.

The court observed that, viewing the Delta Reform Act holistically, several points stand out. First, the Act primarily targets “future developments,” rather than existing ones. Second, a covered action is defined as an action occurring within the Delta or Suisun Marsh boundaries. Third, such actions must significantly impact California’s water supply reliability or the Delta ecosystem. Fourth, routine maintenance and operation of the SWP are not included as covered actions. While the court did not delve into the exact meaning of “routine maintenance and operation,” it found it fair to say that the existing SWP is generally exempt from being a covered action.

Applying these insights, the court held that the amendments do not qualify as a covered action. The amendments merely extend existing contracts with SWP contractors and enhance DWR’s ability to finance improvements and new facilities for the SWP using revenue bonds, subject to certain approvals. They do not physically take place in the Delta, nor do they modify the developed uses of the SWP. Therefore, the DWR’s decision not to prepare a certification of consistency with the Delta Plan was not erroneous.

Public Trust Doctrine

The petitioners argued that, under the California Supreme Court’s decision in National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419 (National Audubon), DWR had an affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in approving the amendments. The court disagreed, reasoning that a closer reading of National Audubon indicates that the high court was specifically concerned about the approval of water diversions. This distinction is significant because DWR does not approve water diversions—that task is performed by the State Water Resources Control Board.

Furthermore, the court found that the record supported DWR’s conclusion that the amendments do not impact a public trust resource. The water rights at issue were granted by the State Water Board in 1967 and have been amended by that board several times. The contracts giving the contractors interest in those water rights “were executed in the 1960s and allow the contractors to extend their interests indefinitely.” Under this framework, it was reasonable for DWR to conclude that extending the terms of the contracts to 2085 would not have impacts on resources held in the public trust.

The court also rejected the petitioners’ argument that, under National Audubon, DWR has a “‘continuing duty to supervise’” the taking and use of the appropriated water. The court explained that petitioners took the statements in National Audubon out of context in that, in National Audubon, no agency had ever considered the public trust in relation to the challenged water diversions and their harm to Mono Lake. The court in the present case declined to translate the “continuing duty of supervision” described in National Audubon as imposing a continued duty on DWR to supervise the water rights with which it operates the SWP. In this context, DWR’s duty under the public trust doctrine is only triggered when DWR is taking an action with an impact on public trust uses. Since there is no such impact here, the duties to weigh the public trust interests or consider additional protections do not apply.

Remaining Arguments Against Validation of the Amendments

Finally, the court rejected several other arguments raised by the petitioners challenging the amendments’ validation.

The Validation Action Was Not Premature

The petitioners argued that DWR’s validation action was premature. The Court of Appeal rejected this contention, explaining that the 60-day limitation period for bringing a validation action and the public policy of a speedy determination of a public agency’s action undermined the petitioners’ claim of prematurity. Furthermore, the petitioners failed to cite any authority to support the position that prematurity is a valid defense against a validation action.

The Amendments Are Consistent with the Burns-Porter Act

Under the Burns-Porter Act, any income from the sale, delivery, or use of SWP water or power must be placed into a special fund. This fund is then used for various purposes, following a strict order of priority established by the Act. The highest priority is for funding the annual maintenance and operation costs of the SWP, including replacing any parts of the SWP as needed. The petitioners argued that the amendments – specifically the extension amendment and the revenue bond amendment – were inconsistent with this first priority requirement. The court disagreed, finding that nothing in the amendments disrupts or contravenes the established priority order for the use of funds as set forth in the Burns-Porter Act.

DWR Complied with Water Code Section 147.5

Water Code section 147.5 outlines the procedures DWR must follow when renewing or extending long-term water supply contracts. Specifically, that statute requires DWR to present details of the contract terms at an informational hearing before the Legislature at least 60 days before final approval of the contract.

The petitioners claimed that DWR failed to meet these requirements because it submitted only draft amendments, not the final version, to the Legislature. The court rejected this argument, finding that Water Code 147.5 only mandates a presentation to the Legislature 60 days before contract approval and does not specify that the contract must be in its final form at this stage. The informational hearing could lead to further amendments, and the statute not require another hearing for such changes. Moreover, the purpose of Water Code Section 147.5 is to ensure high-level oversight of the renewal or extension of SWP long-term contracts, not to involve the Legislature in overseeing the details of finalizing these contracts.

The Petitioners failed to support their argument that the amendments are unconscionable.

The petitioners argued that it was unconscionable for DWR to reauthorize the terms of the existing contracts regarding water delivery amounts because those terms are impossible or impractical to fulfill. The Court of Appeal, like the trial court before it,  declined to consider this argument because the petitioners failed to offer any legal authority to support it.

DWR acted within its authority in approving the amendments.

Lastly, the petitioners argued that validating the amendments is improper because, according to the petitioners, the amendments provide DWR “absolute power” to enter into “unbounded” contracts. The petitioners, however, failed to demonstrate how validating the amendments would give DWR absolute and unrestricted contracting authority, particularly given that the validation action is limited to contracts tied to or directly related to DWR bonds. Validating the amendments does not give DWR a “free pass” to base its decisionmaking on “paper water.”

Conclusions and Implications

At bottom, the petitioners’ CEQA arguments in this case rested on two mistaken assumptions: first, that the amendment would transform the SWP, possibly leading to expanded SWP operations and a Delta conveyance project; and second, that without the amendments, the existing SWP contracts would terminate. The court rejected these assumptions. Although future capital improvement projects within the SWP may benefit from bond funding under the amendments, such future projects are speculative and not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the amendments. Furthermore, the court found that it is reasonable for DWR to assume that the terms of the existing contracts will continue, regardless of these particular amendments. The contracts’ evergreen provision authorizes the contractors to request the same amount of continued water service indefinitely and several contractors had already exercised that option. Furthermore, California’s residents and farms depend on continued delivery of SWP water, and the contractors have invested enormous sums in the SWP. The court agreed with DWR’s pragmatic view that it is more plausible to anticipate contract extensions than their termination.

Having rejected the underlying premises of the petitioners’ claims, the court applied straightforward analyses to the petitioners’ CEQA claims. Case law firmly establishes that when a project proposes the continuation of existing activities, the baseline includes those activities. Therefore, DWR properly included the current contracts, including current operation of the SWP, as part of the baseline. Impacts caused by the current operation of the SWP are not impacts of the proposed amendments.

The law is also clear that projects with independent utility need not be treated as part of a larger project under CEQA. Here, the amendments have utility independent of future improvements to the SWP, including a potential Delta conveyance project. Moreover, such future projects are not a consequence of the amendments, since such projects could proceed with or without the amendments. In addition, CEQA does not requires agencies to speculate about the consequences of future, uncertain activities.

– Laura M. Harris

SECOND DISTRICT HOLDS HOUSING PROJECT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR CLASS 32 IN-FILL EXEMPTION BECAUSE OF INCONSISTENCIES WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES

General Posted by   

In United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1074, the court held that the City of Los Angeles failed to consider the project’s consistency with the general plan’s applicable housing element polices, and that the challenging petitioner group sufficiently exhausted its administrative remedies regarding the inconsistencies by contesting the project’s consistency with the housing element’s general goals, without referencing the specific policies.

 Background

The City approved a project that would replace 40 apartment units subject to the City’s rent stabilization ordinance with a 156-room hotel, and determined the project was exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 32 in-fill exemption. United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles sought a writ of mandate arguing that the in-fill exemption does not apply because the project is not consistent with a general plan policy regarding the preservation of affordable housing. The trial court granted the writ, halting the project pending CEQA review or the City making a finding that the project is consistent with the policy at issue. The City appealed.

Court of Appeal’s Opinion

Exhaustion

The court concluded that United Neighborhoods exhausted its administrative remedies because its comments that the project’s demolition of the rent stabilized apartment units would conflict with the first goal of the housing element were sufficient to apprise the City of the issues raised in litigation. The court explained that United Neighborhoods’s references to the housing element’s general goals, rather than its specific policies, was immaterial because a general plan is structured in such a way that a project that is inconsistent with housing element goals will also conflict with the housing element policies. Moreover, the court found United Neighborhoods’s objection concerned multiple housing element policies relating to the preservation of, as opposed to the production of, affordable housing, and was therefore sufficient to apprise the City of the policies that United Neighborhoods’s objection implicated. Finally, the court emphasized that the City expressly acknowledged that United Neighborhoods’s objection was that the project’s removal of the apartment units would conflict with the housing element.

Consistency with General Plan Policies

The court held that substantial evidence does not support the City’s determination that the housing element policies are inapplicable, and that the City did not consider the project’s consistency with the applicable policies.

First, the court explained that the housing element policies are applicable to the project because the project will have an impact on the preservation of housing reflected in several of the housing element’s goals, objectives, and policies. The court found that the City focused only on the portions of the housing element that related to the production of new housing.

The court also rejected the City’s argument that “affordable housing” is a term of art that does not include rent stabilized housing units. The court explained that nothing in the housing element suggests that “affordable housing” is a term that deviates from its ordinary meaning, and therefore must refer to the dictionary definition: “housing that can be afforded by those on low or median incomes; spec. housing made available to those on lower incomes at a price below normal market value, as the result of legislation or subsidy by a local authority or the state.” Accordingly, the court determined that rent stabilized units are a form of “affordable housing” because they prohibit landlords from raising rents to reflect normal market value under certain circumstances. While the court acknowledged that deference is typically given to an agency’s finding of consistency with its own general plan, such deference is not given with respect to the City’s determination of which policies apply to the project.

Second, the court rejected the City’s argument that its consideration of the project’s consistency with the housing element can be inferred from its express discussion of other related policies. The court explained that the other policies that the City expressly discussed did not mention affordable housing and were less specific than the housing element policies.

The court was also not persuaded that the City’s conditional approval of the project on compliance with the Ellis Act—a requirement in the housing element—implied that it considered applicable housing element policies. It explained that the conditions of approval indicated that the Ellis Act condition is derived from the City’s Municipal Code, and therefore does not demonstrate the City’s consideration of the housing element policies.

While the court emphasized that the City was not required to make formal findings that housing element policies are outweighed by competing polices favoring the project, or that such a decision would necessarily conflict with the general plan, it concluded that a court cannot defer to the City’s weighing and balancing of general plan policies without supporting evidence that the City did weigh and balance all applicable policies.

Therefore, because the Class 32 in-fill exemption requires consistency with all applicable general plan policies, the court upheld the trial court’s determination that the City’s application of the exemption was unlawful.

FIRST DISTRICT HOLDS LACK OF A LEGALLY COMPLIANT LAND USE DESIGNATION ALONE DOES NOT PRECLUDE AN AGENCY FROM DENYING A PROJECT FOR UNRELATED REASONS

General Posted by   

In Lafayette Bollinger Development LLC v. Town of Moraga (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 752, the First District Court of Appeal upheld the Town of Moraga’s denial of a development application based on unrelated inconsistencies with the general plan, despite the fact that Moraga’s land use element included a land use designation for the project site that was out of compliance with the law.

Background

The Town of Moraga denied Lafayette Bollinger Development LLC’s and Joan and David Bruzzone’s application to develop housing on the developers’ property and certify the EIR for the project because the project was not consistent with portions of the general plan related to public safety, residential density, grading volumes, location of other proposed development relative to the site, and impacts to natural resources. Moraga also denied the developers’ request for a general plan amendment and to change the zoning of the subject property from a “Study” designation to “residential.” The “Study” designation was originally intended to be temporary, but remained in place for approximately two decades and only allowed agricultural and accessory building uses. The developers sued Moraga, challenging its denial of the development application and general plan and zoning changes. The trial court issued a peremptory writ of mandate in favor of the developers, directing Moraga to issue a legally compliant land use designation, but rejecting the developers’ other claims regarding the denial of the development application, including takings, equal protection, and due process violations. The developers appealed.

Court of Appeal’s Opinion

 While the Court of Appeal agreed that the “Study” designation violates Government Code section 65302, subdivision (a), it rejected the developers’ argument that the improper land use designation rendered Moraga’s entire land use element unlawful, and that Moraga was therefore unauthorized to reject its development application. The court concluded that a lack of a legally compliant land use designation alone does not preclude a local agency from denying a project application for unrelated reasons.

Procedural Issues

The court rejected Moraga’s argument that the developers’ challenge of the illegal land use designation is time barred because the court agreed that Moraga forfeited this argument by failing to raise it before the trial court.

The court also rejected Moraga’s argument that the developers failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by not requesting that Moraga adopt a land use designation independent of the development application. The court determined that the developers had repeatedly challenged the designation during the administrative proceedings—including specifically arguing that the designation prevented them from developing the property, that there was no legal precedent for leaving the designation in place for an extended duration, and that Moraga had an obligation to change it. Therefore, the court concluded, Moraga had sufficient notice of these claims.

Unlawful “Study” Land Use Designation

The parties did not contest that the “Study” land use designation violates section 65302, subdivision (a) because, as the court explained, the designation fails to describe a use of land and there is no dispute that the designation was a placeholder until Moraga could determine the appropriate permanent category. The court agreed with the trial court that Moraga had a mandatory duty to adopt a legally compliant land use designation for the property and that the trial court properly issued a writ directing Moraga to fulfill its duty.

The court further held, however, that this deficiency in the general plan did not void Moraga’s denial of the project application. The court explained that the developers failed to identify any law that prohibited Moraga from denying the project application simply because the general plan’s land use element did not comply with section 65302, subdivision (a). Here, the reasons given for the denial of the application involved public safety concerns and environmental impacts, and had nothing to do with the improper designation. If the developers were to prevail on their argument, the court reasoned, any deficiency in the general plan would preclude a local government from making any land use decision until the deficiency was corrected. Therefore, the developers failed to demonstrate a prejudicial abuse of discretion in the denial of their project application.

Takings

The court upheld the trial court’s determination that the developers’ takings claim was ripe as to the denial of the development project application and the land use designation, but not smaller potential projects, because neither Moraga or the developers explained why the trial court’s holding was unsound. Therefore, both parties forfeited their ripeness arguments.

The court rejected the developers’ takings claim on the merits. The court held that the illegal land use designation did not prevent the developers from seeking to develop the property, as the project application was not denied because of the land use designation and Moraga’s denial of the project did not deprive developers of all economically beneficial use of the property. The developers failed to argue otherwise on appeal, or show that smaller projects would not be economically beneficial or that they had no other reasonable use of the property. Moreover, the court also reiterated the trial court’s finding that the developers did not have a reasonable expectation of building the number of homes for which it claimed it had an “investment-backed” expectation because the character of the land might have limited the number of residences that could be built.

Equal Protection & Substantive Due Process

The court rejected the developers’ claim that Moraga’s actions denied them equal protection. The court determined that although Moraga’s actions resulted in an unreasonably long delay in adopting a permanent land use designation to comply with Government Code section 65302, Moraga had a rational basis in the delay to gather more information about the property due to the property’s unique aspects, including significant slopes and grading. Moreover, the court reiterated that the unlawful land use designation did not make it impossible for developers to develop the property or prevent them from submitting a project application, as they were able to propose a permanent designation in conjunction with the project application. Lastly, the developers failed to explain why Moraga’s denial of the project application had no rational basis beyond those involving the land use designation.

The court also rejected the developers’ substantive due process claims based on Moraga’s failure to issue a permanent and lawful land use designation for similar reasons. The court reiterated that there were rational reasons to retain the “Study” land use designation, and that it did not prevent other development or substantially hinder use of the property.

FOURTH DISTRICT UPHOLDS CITY’S APPROVAL OF AN ADDENDUM TO A PROGRAM EIR FOR A RESIDENITAL HOUSING PROJECT

General Posted by   

In Olen Properties Corporation v. City of Newport Beach (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 270, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that no new conditions existed that would trigger the need for a subsequent EIR for a residential housing project in the designated Airport Area near John Wayne Airport.

Background

The City of Newport prepared an addendum to the City’s 2006 general plan program EIR for a residential housing project. The Project is a 312-unit residential housing development on an existing surface parking lot in a mixed-use development area, located within the designated Airport Area near the John Wayne Airport. The addendum concluded that the Project’s impacts would either be the same or not substantially greater than those described by the program EIR.

Olen Properties Corporation, an owner of commercial property near the Project site, challenged the City’s approval of the Project and the addendum. The trial court rejected the petitioner’s claims and the petitioner appealed, arguing that new conditions not addressed in the program EIR required the City to prepare a subsequent EIR, rather than an addendum.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

Land Use

The Court of Appeal rejected the petitioner’s claims that the City violated several land use policies in the City’s general plan. First, it rejected the argument that the Project was not large enough to be consistent with the 10-acre requirement for a “mixed-use residential village” because the court determined that the City properly adopted the its Planning Commission’s definition of the Project to include the surrounding business area—thus satisfying this size requirement. Second, the court rejected the argument that the Project’s “public park” did not qualify as a required “neighborhood park.” The court found this terminology distinction meaningless. Third, the court found that the Project’s irregularly shaped park satisfied the minimum dimension requirements—which the court interpreted as exceeding 150 feet in two dimensions, measured from any point within the park’s space, rather than the lesser of the park’s length or width.

Standard of Review

The court explained that the reverse substantial evidence test described in Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307 applies only in limited circumstances where the initial EIR is a program EIR, and a subsequent project is proposed which is not the same or within the scope of the Project, program, or plan described in the program EIR. Otherwise, the appropriate standard is the deferential substantial evidence standard, under which the court considers whether substantial evidence supports the City’s determination that none of the conditions for requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Public Resources Code section 21166 exist.

The court applied the deferential substantial evidence standard because the Project is within the scope of the projects described in the program EIR, which expressly contemplates the construction of higher density housing within the Airport Area.

Traffic

The court held that the City’s use of Level of Service instead of Vehicle Miles Traveled to analyze traffic impacts in the addendum for the Project was appropriate because the program EIR used LOS, and there is no feasible way to compare LOS with VMT. Moreover, the court explained that CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 (the section requiring VMT to analyze traffic impacts) operates “prospectively” and subsequent changes to the guidelines are not “new information” triggering a subsequent EIR. Otherwise, the court reasoned, any changes to the CEQA Guidelines would trigger the preparation of an EIR for every project.

Hazardous Materials

The court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the proximity to a preexisting semiconductor plan would result in environmental impacts. The petitioner and the City provided conflicting expert opinions on this issue. The court concluded that because the substantial evidence standard of review applies, the City’s conclusion was supported and the petitioner’s conflicting evidence is inconsequential.

CC&Rs

The court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the Project does not comply with CC&Rs for the area because they are covenants between private parties, and there is no legal requirement for an agency to consider CC&Rs in an EIR. Moreover, the court explained that the CC&Rs predate the program EIR, and they therefore cannot constitute changes in the Project or its circumstances requiring a subsequent EIR.

Geology and Soils

The court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the Project’s geotechnical report recommendations indicated that impacts on geology and soil could be significant. The court explained that the recommendations were aimed at protecting the Project from corrosion from soil—such as by encasing metal materials in corrosion-resistant materials—and were not designed to protect the environment from the Project.

Lastly, the court concluded that the Project was not required to have a paleontologist physically present at the Project site constantly, and that the Project’s on-call paleontologist was consistent with the City’s general plan requirements.

Administrative Appeal Does Not Toll CEQA’s Statute of Limitations Where the Administrative Appeal Process Does Not Cover CEQA Issues

General Posted by   

In American Chemistry Council v. Department of Toxic Substances Control (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 146, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) adopted a regulation listing spray polyurethane foam systems as a priority product of concern under California’s “Green Chemistry” law and the Safer Consumer Products regulations. The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that petitioners’ CEQA challenge to the listing decision was untimely. The court also held that the listing decision complied with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and was within the scope of DTSC’s authority.

Background

Spray foam systems are a popular type of spray-applied insulation. Since 2014, DTSC has identified spray foam systems as a potential priority product under its Safer Consumer Products program and the Green Chemical law. After preparing several technical studies, in March 2018, DTSC submitted a final regulatory package for the listing regulation to the Office of Administrative Law. At that time, DTSC also issued a notice of exemption under CEQA for the listing regulation. The Office of Administrative Law approved the listing on April 26, 2018.

On May 30, 2018, petitioner American Chemistry Council submitted an informal dispute resolution request to have the department withdraw the listing. This dispute resolution process was authorized by the Safer Consumer Products regulations. DTSC ultimately rejected the request and associated administrative appeal on February 25, 2019.

On August 9, 2019, the American Chemistry Council and General Coatings Manufacturing Corporation filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint challenging the listing regulation under the APA and CEQA. The trial court rejected petitioners’ APA claims, but found that the department had violated CEQA. Both sides appealed.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

DTSC argued that petitioners’ CEQA claim was time-barred under CEQA’s 180-day statute of limitations because petitioners did not file their lawsuit until more than a year after DTSC made its listing decision. Petitioners claimed that DTSC’s listing decision was not final until the informal dispute resolution and appeal process was complete, so the statute of limitations did not begin to run until that time. The Court of Appeal agreed with DTSC, holding petitioners’ CEQA claim was time-barred.

The Court of Appeal first explained that the Safer Consumer Products’ regulatory structure for administrative appeals does not cover CEQA issues. The court observed that the dispute resolution and appeal process set forth in the Safer Consumer Products regulations is limited to a subset of disputes arising out of those same regulations. Nothing in the dispute resolution regulations suggests that CEQA issues may be resolved as part of that process. Accordingly, petitioners were under no duty to exhaust their administrative remedies under CEQA through that dispute resolution process.

Petitioners argued that, even if they were not required to exhaust their administrative remedies on their CEQA claims through the Safer Consumer Product’s dispute resolution process, the statute of limitations under CEQA did not begin to run until the administrative appeal process was completed because there was no final agency action until that process was resolved. The court rejected this argument, explaining that CEQA’s limitations period begins to run on the date the project is approved by the public agency. That period is not retriggered on each subsequent date that the public agency takes some action toward implementing the project, such as DTSC’s decision to deny the administrative appeal.

Here, by the time the Office of Administrative Law approved and filed the regulatory packet on April 26, 2018, DTSC had publicly voiced its intent to list spray foam systems as a priority product, taken and responded to public comments on that decision, issued a notice of exemption under CEQA, and released a final statement of reasons for the action. At that point, DTSC had made a firm commitment to the listing. Thus, the court determined, the statute of limitations on the CEQA claim began to run no later than April 26, 2018, when the Office of Administrative Law approved the listing. Because petitioners did not file their lawsuit within 180 days of that date, the CEQA claim was time-barred.

The court also held that DTSC did not exceed its authority under the Green Chemistry law or violate the APA in listing spray foam systems as a priority product. Contrary to petitioners’ arguments, DTSC was not required to establish a set exposure level for the chemical in question because the Green Chemistry law focuses on potential for exposure, not the extent of exposure. Further, the record supported DTSC’s conclusion that even a miniscule exposure could harm certain individuals. Additionally, DTSC substantially complied with applicable requirements governing the listing’s economic-impact analysis. And DTSC had a rational basis for rejecting voluntary alternatives to the listing decision.

–Laura Harris

SECOND DISTRICT HOLDS 90-DAY LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR ACTIONS TO “ATTACK, REVIEW, SET ASIDE, VOID, OR ANNUL” LAND USE DECISIONS, RATHER THAN 4-YEAR PERIOD PROVIDED BY POLITICAL REFORM ACT, APPLIED TO ACTION CHALLENGING ALLEGEDLY CORRUPT PERMITTING DECISIONS

General Posted by   

In AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. City of Los Angeles (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 322, the Second District Court of Appeal held that the 90-day statute of limitations in Government Code section 65009, for actions to “attack, review, set aside, void, or annul” certain land use decisions, barred challenges to land use decisions made by City officials alleged to be involved in an extensive bribery scheme.

Background

The Los Angeles City Council planning and land use management (PLUM) committee has various roles, including reviewing and recommending proposed real estate development projects. In 2020, one former member of the PLUM committee was arrested, and another was indicted, for allegedly accepting bribes and engaging in other corrupt behaviors in relation to PLUM committee work. Both members left the PLUM committee in the fall of 2018.

In August 2020, AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) filed suit against the City, alleging that an “ongoing corruption scandal regarding the approval of real estate projects” violated the Political Reform Act of 1974 (PRA or Act). AHF sought an order restraining all building permits granted by the City while the corrupt former members served on the PLUM committee, as well as an order restraining the City from supporting any of the affected projects with taxpayer money.

The City demurred to AHF’s complaint, arguing that the claims were time-barred. The superior court sustained the demurrer, concluding that the action had not been brought within the applicable 90-day statute of limitations. AHF appealed.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

Applicable Statute of Limitations

In the trial court, AHF argued that the PRA provided the applicable statute of limitations. The PRA permits suits for injunctive relief where public officials are alleged to have used their official position to influence government actions for their own personal financial interests. Relevant here, the PRA permits courts to set aside official actions tainted by violations of the Act. The PRA includes a four-year statute of limitations for civil actions brought under the Act.

On appeal, AHF argued instead that the three-year “catch-all” statute of limitations for statutorily-created liability in Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (a) applied to the action. The City consistently argued that the 90-day limitations period provided by Government Code section 65009 for actions “to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul” various land use and zoning decisions applied to the action.

The Second District agreed with the City that the 90-day statute of limitations barred the action. Citing Ching v. San Francisco Bd. of Permit Appeals (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 888 (Ching), which addressed a similar question, the court reasoned that the plain language of section 65009 encompassed AHF’s action. The Ching court noted that section 65009 had no exceptions for actions brought under the PRA. Additionally, the Ching court explained that “specific statutes control general ones” and thus held that the more specific 90-day statute of limitations in section 65009 applied to the type of challenge at issue, rather than the general limitations period provided by the PRA. After reviewing Ching and other similar opinions, the court concluded that section 65009 provided the applicable limitations period for AHF’s action.

Gravamen of the Complaint

Seeking to avoid the 90-day limitations period, AHF argued that the gravamen of its action was a challenge to corruption by City officials, even if the ultimate relief sought was the invalidation of improperly-issued permits.

The court rejected AHF’s argument, explaining that AHF could not escape the short limitations period by characterizing its claim as “necessarily dependent on a finding of a violation of the PRA,” rather than a challenge of project approvals by the PLUM committee.

Constitutional Considerations

Acknowledging that the California Constitution generally limits the Legislature’s power to amend or repeal initiative statutes, the court nevertheless rejected AHF’s argument that applying the limitations period in section 65009 to the action constituted “an unconstitutional legislative amendment to a duly-enacted voter initiative” for several reasons.

First, the court noted that the PRA contained express provisions allowing amendments to the Act by the Legislature, and that AHF failed to address these provisions in its briefing. Second, recognizing that the limitations period in section 65009 pre-dated the PRA by almost 10 years, the court remarked that the Legislature could not have intended to limit or amend the PRA in enacting section 65009. Third, the court explained that the four-year limitations period in the PRA was added by a later legislative amendment, not by voter initiative. Thus, the limitations period in the PRA was not enacted by voter initiative, as AHF claimed. Finally, even if the electorate had enacted the PRA’s four-year limitations period through an initiative, the court reasoned that the electorate did nothing to expressly abrogate other existing and potentially applicable statutes of limitations when it passed the PRA. For these reasons, the court held that the application of the pre-existing 90-day limitations period provided in section 65009 to the PRA action did not conflict with or amend the original PRA.

Policy Arguments

While AHF urged that important policy reasons justified the application of a longer limitations period to “discover and ferret out corruption,” the court declined to consider the policy goals underlying both the PRA and section 65009. The court explained that the statutory language of 65009 contained no ambiguity, and thus, it was required to apply the 90-day limitations period contained therein to AHF’s action.

— Louisa Rogers

FIRST DISTRICT UPHOLDS LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT DETERMINATION FOR BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BASED ON SURVEY THAT PREDATES THE NOP, AND ON PUBLIC SAFETY BASED ON CITY STAFF EXPERTISE

General Posted by   

In Save North Petaluma River and Wetlands v. City of Petaluma (2022), 86 Cal.App.5th 207, the First District Court of Appeal upheld an EIR’s analysis of an apartment complex’s impacts on biological resources and public safety. The court concluded that the EIR’s reliance on a special status species survey conducted several years before the NOP was issued, as well as review of more recent databases, was sufficient to support its conclusion that the Project would have a less than significant impact. It also concluded that the City’s reliance on its staff’s expertise was sufficient to support its conclusion that the Project would not have a significant impact on public safety related to emergency evacuation.

Background

In 2007, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a 312-unit apartment complex in the City of Petaluma. In May 2008, the applicant submitted an application for a smaller 278-unit complex to comport with the City’s newly adopted 2025 General Plan. In March 2018, the City published a draft EIR for the complex, which included a 2004 consultant report on special status species in the Project area. In October 2019, the City issued a final EIR for the Project, concluding that the changes made in the reduced-scale version of the complex eliminated or reduced several of the potentially significant impacts identified in the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the final EIR, but did not recommend approving the necessary zoning amendments.

In January 2020, in response to public comment and input from public agencies, the applicant submitted a second reduced version of the Project with 180 units (hereinafter, the Project), reducing the building footprint and increasing the setback from the Petaluma River, preserving two wetlands near the river and avoiding development in the River Plan Corridor, and preserving additional trees with a flood terrace design adjustment. A City staff report determined that this second revised version of the Project reduced impacts and addressed the Planning Commission’s concerns regarding the zoning amendments, and concluded that the second revised Project was within the reasonable range of alternatives addressed in the EIR and would not result in new or more substantial impacts compared to prior versions. The City certified the EIR and overturned the Planning Commission’s denial of zoning amendments. In February 2020, the City approved the zoning amendments by ordinance.

Save North Petaluma River and Wetlands and Beverly Alexander (Petitioners) field a petition for writ of mandate challenging the adequacy of the EIR on several grounds. The trial court denied the petition and Petitioners appealed.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

Special Status Species Impact Analysis

The court rejected Petitioners’ argument that the EIR’s impact analysis of special status species was deficient.

It explained that the EIR did not fail to investigate the project’s baseline conditions as of 2007 when the NOP was published because the 2004 special status species survey was based on current data at the time, and the EIR included database reviews from more recent years—as recent as 2017. The court further explained that there is no authority suggesting that CEQA is violated where an EIR’s analysis is drawn from site visits, studies, and habitat evaluations undertaken both before and after the NOP. Further, the court noted that Petitioners did not cite any evidence that the biological conditions at the Project site differed from 2004 to 2007, or in later years when updated databases were consulted.

Moreover, the court reasoned that Petitioners failed to challenge the EIR’s description of existing conditions and habitats on the undeveloped Project site, and that there is no evidence that the EIR omitted or inaccurately described the material aspects of the biological conditions on or near the Project site. The court distinguished this case from a string of cases where an EIR purported to measure impacts based on conditions that did not exist on the Project site or on conditions that were forecasted to exist at some point in the distant future. (See, e.g., Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48.)

The court held that the EIR’s references to studies and site visits constitute substantial evidence supporting its special status species analysis because factual information in the EIR itself may constitute substantial evidence in the record to support the agency’s action on the project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15121, subd. (c).) The court explained that it is appropriate to cite, but not include such documents in the EIR.

Therefore, the court held that the EIR’s analysis and information upon which it relied regarding the Project’s impacts on special status species was sufficient, and accordingly rejected Petitioners’ further contend that the EIR failed to offer recommendations that would adequately mitigate the Projects impacts on these species.

Emergency Evacuation & Public Safety Impact Analysis

The court also rejected Petitioners’ argument that the EIR was deficient because it omitted an analysis of egress and evacuation safety based on public comment documenting flooding and grass fires in the area. The court instead held that the EIR’s conclusion that the Project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan was supported by substantial evidence, noting thde EIR’s adoption of the 2013 California Fire Code, consultation with the Petaluma Fire Department, and incorporation of additional recommendations and approval from the City Fire Marshal.

The court also explained that an agency may rely on the expertise of its staff to determine that a project will not have a significant impact, and that the City therefore appropriately relied on a City staff memorandum corroborating the public safety analysis in the EIR and reflecting information from the City’s Assistant Fire Chief confirming that the Fire Department does not have significant flood or fire access or egress concerns with development above the 100-year floodplain at the site. Additionally, the court rejected Petitioners’ claim that the City staff memorandum is improper post-EIR analysis, distinguishing this case from Sierra Watch v. County of Placer (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 86.

–Veronika Morrison

FIRST DISTRICT HOLDS THAT A HIGH SCHOOL’S INSTALLATION OF FOUR 90-FOOT LIGHT TOWERS FOR ATHLETIC STADIUM IS NOT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA

General Posted by   

In Saint Ignatius Neighborhood Association v. City and County of San Francisco (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 1063, the First District Court of Appeal held that the installation of four 90-foot light towers in a high school’s athletic stadium is not exempt from CEQA under the class 1 and class 3 categorical exemptions.

Background

Saint Ignatius College Preparatory High School is located in the City of San Francisco’s “Outer Sunset District.” The school has an athletic stadium with a 2,008-person capacity, situated across the from several two-story, single-family homes. In February 2018, the school applied for approval of the installation of four permanent 90-foot-tall outdoor light towers on its athletic field. In June 2020, the City’s planning department determined that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA under the class 1 exemption for existing facilities and the class 3 exemption for new construction or conversion of small structures. (See CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15301, 15303.)

In July 2020, the Planning Commission upheld the exemption determinations and approved a conditional use permit for the project with several conditions, including that the lights be used no more than 150 nights per year, as well as other various time and event size restrictions. The Planning Commission also required close communication with neighbors about events and the distribution of a large-event management plan and code of conduct for event attendees. The Board of Supervisors affirmed the planning department’s exemption determination and approved the conditional use authorization with additional and stricter conditions related to time restrictions, event size restrictions, required use reporting by the school, off-site parking accommodations, and the addition of trees to serve as a light screen for neighboring homes.

The Saint Ignatius Neighborhood Association filed suit, alleging that the City erred in exempting the project from CEQA, and that its approval was inconsistent with its planning code and General Plan. The trial court denied the petition. Petitioner appealed.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

Class 1 “Existing Facilities” Exemption

The class 1 exemption applies to “the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of the existing or former use.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15301.)

While the court agreed with the City’s findings that the project will not increase the overall capacity and use of the stadium, it concluded that the project will significantly expand the nighttime use of the stadium. The court pointed to the “undisputed” fact that nighttime use, during which temporary lighting is used, will significantly expand from the current 40 to 50 nights per year, to potentially 150 nights. The court also noted petitioner’s assertion that the current use of temporary lighting is unauthorized. Accordingly, the court found that the class 1 exemption for “existing facilities” did not apply.

Class 3 “Small Structures” Exemption

The class 3 exemption applies to “construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15303.) To determine what constitutes a “small” structure pursuant to the class 3 exemption the court looked to the examples listed in the exemption. While acknowledging that this list is not exhaustive, the court stated that “the examples do provide an indication of the type of projects to which the exemption applies.”

The court found that “[t]he light standards are fundamentally dissimilar from all of the examples,” which primarily include residential and commercial structures below certain unit and square footage maximums, utility structures, and accessory structures such as garages and fences. The court decided that looking at only the square footage of the base of the light towers was inapposite. It explained that commercial and residential structures were subject to applicable zoning requirements that ensure their height will be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, whereas here, the 90-foot-tall light towers will be “significantly taller than any other structure in the neighborhood,” where homes are typically 20 to 25 feet tall with a zoning limitation of 40-feet. Consequently, the court determined that “a 90-foot tall light standard does not qualify as ‘small’ within the meaning of the exemption.”

The court also distinguished the instant case from a string of cases allowing the class 3 exemption to apply to several telecommunication projects, including a cell tower (Don’t Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 338) and cell transmitters on utility poles (Aptos Residents Assn. v. County of Santa Cruz (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1039), by highlighting that the light towers, unlike a 35-foot-tall cell tower to be situated amongst tall trees or the installation of transmitter boxes on existing utility poles, will be 90-feet tall and “by far the tallest structure in the surrounding area.” Accordingly, the court held that “the light standards cannot fairly be considered small structures within the meaning of the class 3 exemption.”

Unusual Circumstances Exception & General Plan Consistency

Because the court found against the use of both exemptions based on its interpretation of exemption language and the evidence in the record, it declined to address petitioner’s alternative argument that “unusual circumstances preclude application of the exemptions” or the claim that the City violated its code and General Plan.

By Casey Shorrock

Third District Holds Bumble Bees are “fish” under the California Endangered Species Act, Can Be Listed as Endangered or Threatened Species

General Posted by   

In Almond Alliance of California v. Fish and Game Commission (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 337, the Third District Court of Appeal held that bumble bees fall under the general definition of “fish,” as the term is defined in the California Fish and Game Code, because the definition includes terrestrial, as well as aquatic, invertebrates. Accordingly, bumble bees, which are terrestrial invertebrates, may receive protected status as endangered or threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act (“CESA”).

Background

In October 2018, several public interest groups petitioned the California Fish and Game Commission (“Commission”) to list four species of bumble bees as endangered. Soon after, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“Department”) issued a report declaring sufficient evidence for the Commission to accept the petition to list the species. The Commission acted accordingly, declaring the bee species as “candidate” species for further review by the Department.

In September 2019, Petitioners challenged the Commission’s decision to list the bumble bees as candidate species. They alleged the Commission violated its legal duty and abused its discretion because bumble bees are terrestrial invertebrates not included in CESA’s protections for “bird[s], mammal[s], fish, amphibian[s], reptile[s], or plant[s].” Furthermore, they asserted that section 45’s definition of “fish,” which includes invertebrates, refers only to aquatic invertebrates.

The trial court ruled for petitioners. The Commission, the Department, and several public interest groups appealed.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

Section 45 Definition of “Fish” as Applied to Sections 2062, 2067, and 2068 of CESA

“Fish” as defined in section 45 of the California Fish and Game Code means “a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.”  The Commission contended that this definition applies to the provisions of CESA which define endangered, threatened, and candidate species—sections 2062, 2067 and, 2068, respectively.

The Court agreed with the Commission, citing legal precedent and CESA’s legislative history. Specifically, the Court reaffirmed the holding in California Forestry Association v. California Fish & Game Commission (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1535 that section 45 defines “fish” as the term is used in sections 2062 and 2067 of CESA. Additionally, the Court identified several instances in which the Legislature used or acquiesced to the use of the section 45 definition. For example, the Court highlighted that the Legislature expressly used the section 45 definition of “fish” when it enacted CESA, though it was within the purview the Legislature to create its own definition. Relatedly, the Legislature amended section 45 after the California Forestry Association decision, but stopped short of signaling its contrary intent from the holding in that case. Based on this evidence, the Court concluded that the Legislature intended for the word “fish” in sections 2062, 2067, and 2068 of CESA to take on the meaning as defined in section 45.

“Fish” Is a Term of Art Not Limited to Aquatic Species 

Petitioners asserted that even if section 45 applies to sections 2062, 2067, and 2068, the term invertebrates in the definition of “fish” should be read as being limited to aquatic invertebrates. However, the Court espoused the more technical definition of “fish” that encompasses all terrestrial and aquatic species that fall under the categories of “mollusks, invertebrates, amphibians, and crustaceans.”

The Court described how legislative history supports this definition. It explained that at the time CESA was enacted, several bill analysis reports noted that the Commission had the authority to designate insects as endangered or threatened. Additionally, the Court highlighted that the Commission previously approved a terrestrial mollusk and invertebrate, the Trinity Bristle Snail, as an endangered species and expressly reaffirmed its status upon CESA’s enaction. The Trinity Bristle Snail’s endangered status is an explicit example of the Commission using its authority to protect terrestrial invertebrates under the section 45 definition of “fish.”

Additionally, the Court noted that previous caselaw directs it to construe laws providing for the conservation of natural resources liberally.

Construing CESA liberally, and considering the legislative intent behind CESA, the Court concluded that “a terrestrial invertebrate, like each of the four bumble bee species, may be listed as an endangered or threatened species under [CESA].”

— Jordan Wright

123