Author Archives: Web

Second District Court of Appeal Holds that Challenge to Project is Time-Barred, Since Statute of Limitations Starts Running with Initial Lease Approval, Not Subsequent Execution of Lease

General Posted by   

Van De Kamps Coalition v. Board of Trustees of Los Angeles Comm. College District (2d Dist. May 8, 2012) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Case No. BS129238)

The Second District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s ruling sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend on the ground that a petition for writ of mandate challenging a community college district’s leasing of a campus site was time barred.

 The project at issue involved the two-acre Van de Kamps Bakery building site (Building) in Los Angeles which the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) purchased in 2001 to construct a community college. An EIR had previously been prepared for the site when a real estate developer had proposed to demolish the Bakery building and build a Home Base store. An EIR update and to addenda were prepared to analyze the environmental impacts of the community college.

In 2008, the LACCD realized that due to state budget cuts, it would be unable to operate the campus. In 2009, in order to use the site for educational purposes, the LACCD Board adopted resolutions approving an interim use of the property and authorized a five-year lease of the Building to an outside tenant (Resolutions). The LACCD Board, however, decided that the lease agreement did not warrant additional environmental review, since the site would be used for the same educational functions contemplated in the EIR update and addenda. The same year, the Board furthered its Resolutions through various actions, such as approving a $40,000 building redesign expenditure and approving the purchase of a neighboring property (Purchase Agreement).

 In 2010, appellant Van De Kamps filed suit against the Board, challenging the adequacy of CEQA review for the Resolutions and subsequent 2009 actions (CEQA I). Following the filing of CEQA I, in 2010, LACCD undertook additional actions furthering its Resolutions. These actions included leasing a portion of one building for employment training, adding indemnification provisions to the Purchase Agreement, and amending a contract to allow for additional architectural services. Appellant moved to amend its CEQA I petition to include claims based on the Board’s 2010 actions. When the trial court denied appellant’s motion, appellant filed a second petition (CEQA II) challenging the 2010 actions. LACCD filed a demurrer to the CEQA I petition, which was unopposed and sustained without leave to amend. LACCD thereafter filed a demurrer to the CEQA II petition claiming it was time-barred, since the 180-day statute of limitations had started running with the 2009 Resolutions, not the subsequent 2010 actions. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision.

The court based its holding on the fact that the 2010 actions were not separate “projects” under CEQA, but were instead mere modifications to the 2009 Resolutions. The court analogized this case to City of Chula Vista v. County of San Diego (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1713, where the court found that the executed agreement did not differ substantially from the original agreement, and was thus not a separate project for purposes of triggering a new statute of limitations. As in Chula Vista, the execution of the lease was not different enough from the lease formation to warrant independent CEQA review.

In reaching its conclusion, the court looked to when projects take legal effect, i.e., are approved, and thus trigger their statutes of limitation. Citing Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 134, the Court stated that approval occurs “when the agency first exercises its discretion to execute a contract or grant financial assistance, not when the last such discretionary decision is made.” Under this definition, LAACD “approved” the project in 2009 when it committed itself to the lease and the Purchase Agreement, and approved the $40,000 expenditure. The subsequent approvals in 2010 did not substantially change the project or its environmental effects. The court reiterated Save Tara’s policy objection to the notion that “any development agreement, no matter how definite and detailed, even if accompanied by substantial financial assistance from the agency and other strong indications of agency commitment to the project, falls short of approval so long as it leaves final CEQA decisions to the agency’s future discretion.”

In conclusion, the court found that the 2010 actions were merely mechanisms for implementing the 2009 Resolutions. As such, they did not re-trigger the 180-day statute of limitations. That statute had run, and appellant’s action was therefore time-barred.

California Supreme Court holds that exhaustion of administrative remedies is required for challenges to categorical exemptions under CEQA where public hearings are held.

General Posted by   

On June 14, 2012, the California Supreme Court decided Tomlinson v. County of Alameda (Case No. S188161), holding that the requirement for exhaustion of administrative remedies found in Public Resources Code section 21177, subdivision (a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to an agency’s decision that a project is categorically exempt from compliance with CEQA, so long as the public agency gives notice of the grounds for its exemption determination, and that determination is preceded by a public hearing at which members of the public had the opportunity to raise objections to the project.

In its decision the Court carefully considered conflicting holdings in Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165 and Hines v. California Coastal Commission (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 830.

Azusa held that section 21177’s exhaustion requirement does not apply to a challenge to a public agency’s decision that a project is categorically exempt from CEQA compliance, whereas Hines held to the contrary.

Procedurally, the issue is that while section 21777 requires that petitioners exhaust their administrative remedies during the public comment period or during a public hearing on the project before issuance of a notice of determination, CEQA does not provide for a public comment period prior to an agency’s determination of a categorical exemption. Further, no public hearing typically precedes the agency’s notice of determination in this situation, because a notice of determination is not generally filed for a categorical exemption.

Under Hines, an exhaustion provision does apply for categorical exemptions, where there was ample notice of a public hearing. The Court followed Hines rather than Azusa because it found that in this case, as in Hines, the agency did hold public hearings on the project which gave interested parties the opportunity to raise objections to the project before the agency’s exemption finding.

The Supreme Court did not reach the petitioners’ arguments that the public agency’s description of the requirements for the infill exemption was misleading, where the County omitted any mention of the infill exemption’s criterion requiring that the project be located “within city limits.” In Tomlinson, the County did not quote the full language in CEQA Guidelines section 15332 in any of its notices and staff reports. Instead, it substituted “in an established urban area” for the exemption’s language “within city limits” in all of its summaries of the exemption criteria in project materials. Petitioners asserted that this substitution misled and prevented them from raising the specific issue of whether the “city limits” restriction disqualified the project from using the infill exemption. The Court also did not address the argument that the petitioner’s extensive objections to the project on multiple issues at public hearings were sufficient to satisfy the exhaustion requirement.

The Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeal to determine whether the claims the petitioners raised were adequate to put the County on notice that the infill exemption did not apply, and whether the County’s omission of key criteria for a categorical exemption excuses the petitioner’s duty to exhaust on that issue.

This case continues to have important precedential value: it is still important to resolve whether an agency must provide full and accurate information in order to successfully assert the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies in CEQA litigation. The Tomlinson petitioners were represented by RMM partner Sabrina V. Teller.

 

SB 973: “Save Our Events” Act would exempt annual fireworks displays

General Posted by   

Senate Bill 973, otherwise known as the “Save Our Events” Act, would exempt annual fireworks displays from CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines include a list of project classes that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment. SB 973 authorizes a lead agency to grant, on an annual basis, one categorical exemption per site for a fireworks display. The bill would thereby impose a state-mandated local program. SB 973 would authorize the office of Planning and Research to identify potential environmental issues related to fireworks displays and to develop guidelines to assist local agencies regarding those displays.

According to Senator Juan Vargas, who fought to pass the bill, “CEQA was not created to allow frivolous lawsuits to ban family and charitable events like parades and fireworks on the Fourth of July.” However, the bill’s narrowness may be fatal to its support. The limited application of SB 973 was intended to be a temporary, politically palatable compromise during negotiations, but Vargas and other supporters now say that if they cannot get broader exemptions they would rather abandon the bill.

Los Angeles City Council Bans Plastic Grocery Bags

General Posted by   

On May 23, 2012, Los Angeles became the nation’s largest city to ban plastic bags at grocery stores. The City Council voted 13-1 to ban single-use plastic bags later this year after completing an EIR and adopting an ordinance. Forty-eight other cities in the state already have similar bans; San Francisco’s extends to pharmacies, restaurants, and small retailers. Large retailers in L.A. will have six months to phase out plastic bags (small retailers will have one year), after which they will provide free paper bags for six months. After that, retailers will charge ten cents per bag.

The city currently goes through 2.7 billion single-use plastic bags every year. Environmentalists supporting the ordinance noted that plastic bag waste contributes to ocean pollution, landfill expansion, littered streets, and clogged waterways. Lobbyists and union employees opposing the ban argued that it would result in job loss and shift jobs overseas. A version of the law that was passed in 2010, which covered the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, reduced plastic bag use in those areas by an estimated 94 percent.

Little Hoover Blesses Governor Brown’s Government Reorganization Plan

General Posted by   

On May 22, 2012, the Little Hoover Commission, a bipartisan state oversight agency responsible for promoting government efficiency, voted 7-0 to endorse Governor Brown’s proposal to reorganize the state government. The Governor’s plan to replace five state agencies with three includes folding the Delta Stewardship Council into the Natural Resources Agency. The proposed changes are not intended to affect the policy independence of each board, but are simply meant to achieve administrative efficiency. The Delta Stewardship Council, for example, already receives a number of administrative services from the Natural Resources Agency and is listed on the agency’s letterhead. The reorganization becomes effective July 1, 2012, and is operative a year from then. The Governor’s plan will save taxpayer dollars by making government more efficient, responsive, and coordinated. The plan is currently unopposed.

First District Court of Appeal Rules a County Board of Supervisors Did Not Need to Hear an Appeal of a Decision to Certify an EIR for Modifications to a Solid Waste Facility Permit Approved by the Local Enforcement Agency

General Posted by   

No Wetlands Landfill Expansion v. County of Marin (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 573

            The First District Court of Appeal ruled that a County Board of Supervisors did not need to hear an appeal of a decision to certify an EIR for modifications to a solid waste facility permit approved by the County’s local enforcement agency.

The Redwood Landfill is an existing landfill located in northern Marin County.  In 1999, the landfill operator applied to revise the landfill’s solid waste facility permit.  The application sought to expand the landfill’s capacity and to adjust landfill operations.  Marin County Environmental Health Services (EHS), the local permitting agency under State law, prepared and certified the Final EIR.  The petitioners tried to appeal that decision to the County Board of Supervisors.  The county rejected the appeal because EHS was the final decision-maker.  In December 2008, EHS approved the permit amendments.  The petitioners sued.  The trial court ruled the county had erred by rejecting the appeal to the Board of Supervisors.  The trial court did not reach the merits with respect to the adequacy of the EIR.  The county and applicant appealed.

            The Court of Appeal reversed.  EHS was lead agency as the designated local enforcement agency under the California Integrated Waste Management Act.  As such, its decision to certify the EIR was not appealable to the Board of Supervisors.  Public Resources Code section 21151, subdivision (c), provides that, if an EIR is certified by a non-elected decision-making body within a local lead agency, then that certification may be appealed to the local lead agency’s elected decision-making body.  That section did not apply, however, because EHS was a separate, distinct entity vested with authority over the permit and, as such, EHS had no elected decision-making body.  The trial court erred in directing the Board of Supervisors to consider the appeal.

            The county and applicant asked the Court of Appeal to reach the merits of the petitioners’ attack on the EIR.  The Court of Appeal declined, and sent the case back to the trial court to be heard on the merits.

Sixth District Court of Appeal Upholds a City’s Economic Infeasibility Basis for Rejecting Alternatives Involving Retaining Ownership of a Mansion

General Posted by   

The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603

The Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled that, in a project involving restoration and sale of an historic mansion, the city had a sufficient basis for rejecting as economically infeasible alternatives involving retaining ownership of the mansion. 

The Flanders Mansion is an historic, 1920s-era Tudor Revival residence.  The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea owns the mansion.  The site is surrounded by a 35-acre nature preserve, also owned by the city.  The city certified an EIR and approved the sale of the mansion in view of the substantial cost of implementing necessary repairs.  The Foundation sued.  The trial court granted the petition.  Both sides appealed.

First, the Foundation argued the EIR did not contain an adequate analysis of potential future uses of the mansion in light of the Surplus Lands Act.  Under that statute, when a local agency wishes to dispose of surplus property, the agency must offer to sell or lease the property to other agencies for use as affordable housing or for park purposes before the property can be sold to a private party.  The EIR recognized the sale of the property would be subject to the act.  The Foundation argued, and the trial court agreed, that the EIR was deficient because it did not analyze the impacts of potential uses for the property authorized under the act.  That was so because an agency buying under the act would not be subject to mitigation measures or conservation easements adopted by the city when it approved the sale.  The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that the city had authority to require, as conditions of sale, adherence to these measures and easements.  Moreover, the city did not have to analyze the impacts of using the mansion as affordable housing because the record supported the city’s conclusion that this use was not reasonably foreseeable in view of the high cost of rehabilitating the mansion and complying with adopted mitigation measures.

Second, during the CEQA process, a commenter asked the city to consider reducing the size of the parcel sold with the mansion.  The Court ruled the Final EIR’s response was inadequate.  Reducing the size of the parcel would also reduce one of the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts:  a reduction in public parkland.  The Final EIR had not provided a complete response to this proposal.

Third, the Foundation argued the city erred by failing to include an economic feasibility analysis in the EIR.  That analysis was prepared by a real-estate consultant to address the economic feasibility of the various alternatives analyzed in the EIR.  The Court ruled the city could rely on information in the record in making its feasibility determinations, regardless of whether that information appeared in the EIR itself.

Fourth, the EIR analyzed alternatives focusing on restoring and leasing the mansion for residential or non-residential use, or doing nothing (no project).  All these alternatives were environmentally superior to the proposed project.  The city rejected them, however, as economically infeasible, citing the consultant’s feasibility report.  The issue for the Court was whether this report constituted substantial evidence supporting the city’s decision.  The Court ruled that it did.  The report estimated that restoration would cost $1.4 million, and lease payments would not enable the city to recoup this cost for many years.  Selling the mansion would recover these costs, however, because the appraised value of the restored mansion was estimated at $4 million.  Doing nothing meant the city would incur ongoing maintenance costs, with no revenue to cover them.  Under such circumstances, the city acted within its discretion in rejecting these alternatives.

Finally, the Court ruled that substantial evidence supported the city’s adopted statement of overriding considerations.  The city acted within its discretion in deciding to sell the mansion, subject to mitigation measures and easements requiring its sensitive restoration.  Although the city could have retained ownership of the restored the building (alternatives the city rejected as infeasible), that did not mean the city could not cite restoration in its list of project benefits, even if the city intended to sell the restored mansion.

Third District Court of Appeal Strikes Down Negative Declaration Prepared for a County’s Oak Woodland Fee Program

General Posted by   

Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1156

The Third District Court of Appeal struck down negative declaration prepared for El Dorado County’s oak woodland fee program, rejecting the county’s attempt to tier off the program EIR prepared for its General Plan. 

In 2004, El Dorado County certified a program EIR and adopted a general plan.  The program EIR acknowledged that development under the new general plan would have significant impacts on oak woodland habitat.  The plan included a policy to develop an integrated natural resources management plan.  The plan had two options to protect woodlands:  “Option A” required adherence to canopy retention standards and replacing woodland habitat at a 1:1 ratio; and “Option B” required payment of an in lieu fee into the county’s integrated plan’s conservation fund.  Pending completing of the integrated plan, the county required project developers to mitigate the loss of oak woodland habitat through only Option A.  In 2008, the county adopted an oak woodland management plan. The purpose of the management plan included developing the Option B fee program and creating a foundation for the oak woodland conservation portion of the integrated plan. Development of the management plan required mapping existing oak woodlands and identifying conservation priorities. Certain criteria were used to prioritize areas with the highest biological value. Valley oak woodland was designated as sensitive habitat.  The plan also included oak woodland corridors for wildlife.  To analyze the environmental effects of the management plan, the county prepared an initial study and negative declaration that tiered from the 2004 program EIR.  The petitioners challenged this approach, arguing an EIR was required.  The trial court denied the petition.  The petitioners appealed.

The county argued the oak woodland management plan and Option B fee program were encompassed in the 2004 program EIR.  The Court disagreed, holding that the 2004 program EIR did not encompass the oak woodland management plan and Option B fee program.  The county had to make a number of judgment calls regarding the details of the fee program, and the general plan and program EIR had not considered or analyzed these details.  First, the 2004 program EIR and general plan did not differentiate between oak species. The management plan, however, focused on valley oaks to the exclusion of other oak species.  Second, the 2004 program EIR did not determine the measurement metric for conservation of oak woodlands to be used under Option B; yet, the choice of one metric versus another would alter the fees required under the Option B fee program.  Third, the 2004 program EIR did not set the fee rate to be paid if a project applicant elected to mitigate under Option B.  Although preservation programs funded by impact fees can be appropriate mitigation, the program must still, at some point, undergo CEQA review.  Fourth, the county’s 2004 program EIR had not specified how fees collected under Option B should be used to preserve oak woodlands. The program EIR emphasized the importance of maintaining connectivity among preserved oak woodlands, yet the county deferred the issue of connectivity until after other elements of the integrated plan could be established.  As a result, the Option B mitigation approach differed from the 2004 program report’s emphasis on the protection of connectivity between woodland habitats.

The Court concluded the record supported a fair argument that the oak woodland management plan and Option B fee program could have a potentially significant effect on the environment. While the 2004 program EIR determined impacts would remain significant even with mitigation, the negative declaration for the management plan concluded cumulative impacts would be less than significant.  The county argued there would be no greater adverse environmental effect than already anticipated in the 2004 general plan and program EIR. The Court rejected this argument, noting that, prior to adoption of the management plan, oak woodlands were required to be preserved at a 1:1 ratio on-site under Option A; that was no longer true under Option B.  For this reason, the county had to prepare an EIR.

RMM Hikes in the Sutter Buttes for Spring Outing with the Middle Mountain Foundation

General Posted by   

For the firm’s spring outing, attorneys and staff of Remy Moose Manley, LLP recently hiked in the Sutter Buttes. The Sutter Buttes are a unique cluster of inactive volcanoes isolated in the Sacramento Valley. The hike through this beautiful area was led by Joe Ruesser, a guide from the Middle Mountain Foundation. Sites included spectacular vistas, wildflowers, golden eagles and a large herd of feral Barbary Sheep—a species of caprid native to North Africa.

The Middle Mountain Foundation was formed in 1989 with the purpose of educating the general public in the relevance and importance to society of natural and cultural resources and to encourage preservation, understanding, and good stewardship of such resources. To further these purposes, the Foundation focuses on findings ways for the public interest and private land to converge for the benefit of all.

Through contractual agreements with private landowners, Middle Mountain Foundation has created numerous learning opportunities within the Sutter Buttes , typically as guided hikes for the public. MMF works with many entities, including local counties, state agencies and national land trusts. MMF encourages land protection easements, which compensate private landowners for development rights, to protect private lands in the Sutter Buttes.

The Middle Mountain Foundation takes its name from that given to the Sutter Buttes by the native Maidu people. The translation to English is “The Middle Mountain.” The Buttes played an important role in the spiritual lives of the Maidu, and evidence of their past presence in the range can still be found today in the form of grinding stones and other cultural resources.

Participants in the spring outing all agreed hiking in the Sutter Buttes was an excellent way to spend a sunny spring day.

More information on the Middle Mountain Foundation can be found here: http://www.middlemountain.org

3839404142