Blog

First District Court of Appeal Reverses Denial of Mixed-Use Affordable Housing Project’s Ministerial Approval Under Government Code Section 65913.4

General Posted by   

In Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 277, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of appellants’ petition filed after their application for ministerial approval of a mixed-use affordable housing development was denied under Government Code section 65913.4. Finding that the trial court improperly applied a deferential standard of review, the court held that the ministerial approval did not conflict with the City’s “home rule” authority over historic preservation or commercial uses and did not involve demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a historic register.

Background

In 2015, appellants submitted an application for a mixed-use development (the “Project”) in the City of Berkeley (the “City”). The Project is located in the West Berkeley Shellmound, an area designated as a City of Berkeley Landmark and listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. The Shellmound is a sacred burial ground from early native habitation and includes subsurface artifacts, but no above ground buildings or structures. In November 2016, the Berkeley Planning and Development Department (the “Department”) prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Project application, which concluded that the Project’s impacts on the Shellmound would be reduced to less-than-significant with mitigation measures.

On January 1, 2018, Senate Bill (“SB”) 35 went into effect, which added section 65913.4 to the Government Code. Section 65913.4 requires a streamlined ministerial approval process and an exemption from a conditional use permit for certain affordable housing projects when a locality has failed to provide its share of “regional housing needs, by income category.” In March 2018, appellants submitted an application pursuant to section 65913.4 for the development of 260 dwelling units, 50 percent of which would be “affordable to low-income households,” and retail space and parking. In April 2018, appellants asked the City to suspend processing of the use permit and California Environmental Quality Act documentation for the Project.

On June 5, 2018, the Department provided appellants with the required written response pursuant to section 65913.4, subdivision (b)(2), stating that SB 35 does not apply to the Project because it impinges on “legitimate municipal affairs”— the preservation of a designated City landmark. The Department nonetheless explained that several components of the application were inconsistent with the criteria for approval under section 65913.4. The Department denied the application for ministerial approval after appellants responded to each of the City’s points. Appellants subsequently filed suit.

The Court of Appeal’s Opinion

Demolition of a Historic Structure

The court determined that section 65913.4 is not a historical preservation statute and the term “structure” in section 65913.4, subdivision (a)(7)(C) does not include historical resources or sites. The court reasoned that section 65913.4 thus protects cultural resources differently from historic structures placed on a historic register; a project that threatens the former may obtain ministerial approval if there are no tribal objections, while the latter is ineligible for ministerial approval. While the court acknowledged that the Shellmound is an important historical and cultural resource, it concluded there is no evidence that it is a structure, let alone one that could be demolished by the Project.

Retroactive Application of AB 831’s Tribal Cultural Resource Protections

The court also refused to apply Assembly Bill (“AB”) 831’s tribal cultural resource protections retroactively to the Project application. It determined that the Legislature deliberatively allowed for some projects to proceed without tribal consultation to account for the interests of those who relied on section 65913.4 prior to AB 831’s effective date. The court held that it would be contrary to the Legislature’s intent and manifestly unfair to apply AB 831 retroactively.

The City’s “Home Rule” Authority Over Historic Preservation

Emphasizing the Legislature’s long history of frustration with local governments’ interference with addressing the statewide housing crisis, the court concluded that applying section 65913.4 would not interfere with the City’s “home rule” authority over historic preservation. Determining whether a matter falls within a charter city’s authority to govern itself free of state legislative intrusion requires the court to consider four issues: (1) whether the city ordinance at issue regulates an activity that can be characterized as a municipal affair; (2) whether there is an actual conflict between local and state law; (3) whether the state law addresses a matter of statewide concern; and (4) whether the law is reasonably related to resolution of that concern and narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference in local governance.

The court dismissed the first three parts of the “home rule” test as essentially undisputed. As for the fourth part of the test, the court determined that section 65913.4 is reasonably related to resolving the statewide interest it addresses—affordable housing—and does not unduly interfere with the City’s historical preservation authority. Citing the legislative findings in Government Code section 65589.5, the court concluded that section 65913.4 is narrowly tailored because historical preservation is precisely the kind of subjective discretionary land use decision that the Legislature sought to prevent localities from using to defeat affordable housing development.

Applicability to Mixed-Use Developments

The court held that section 65913.4 applies to mixed-use development projects. The court rejected respondents’ argument that the statute is limited to projects located on sites that meet the minimum residential requirement for mixed-use developments, rather than the actual development that is the subject of the ministerial approval application. The court concluded that the Project at issue satisfied the two-thirds residential requirement, as it includes a residential area that would occupy 88 percent of the development space. The court further explained that regardless of whether the Project should be deemed consistent with this requirement, it is consistent with the standard due to the Department’s failure to timely raise any conflict with respect to the mixed-use aspect of the application in its letter.

The City’s “Home Rule” Authority to Regulate Commercial Uses

The court rejected respondents’ argument that applying section 65913.4 to mixed-use developments interferes with the City’s authority to regulate commercial uses. Applying the “home rule” test, the court found that any interference of section 65913.4 with the local regulation of commercial uses is minimal and incidental to the statute’s purpose of facilitating development of affordable housing. The court acknowledged that the overall Project would not be subject to a conditional use permit, but nothing in the statute permits ministerial approval of a Project with commercial uses that conflict with local zoning.

Conflict with the City’s AHMF and Traffic Capacity Requirements

The court also concluded that respondents’ Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee (“AHMF”) requirements and traffic zoning standards did not provide a sufficient basis for denial of ministerial approval. The court reasoned that the statewide interest served by section 65913.4 should not be defeated by the local AHMF ordinance, which requires a lower percentage of low-income housing than the Project involves. Additionally, the court determined that the traffic zoning standards did not constitute “objective standards” pursuant to section 65913.4 and the City failed to provide adequate written documentation of potential conflicts with any specific criterion for measuring traffic impacts.

Third District Court of Appeal Holds That a Responsible Agency’s Decision to Prepare a Supplemental EIR Does Not Require It to Step in as a Lead Agency

General Posted by   

In California Coastkeeper Alliance v. State Lands Commission (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 36, the court upheld the State Lands Commission’s decision to prepare and approve a supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Lease Modification Project for the Poseidon desalination plant in Huntington Beach, California. The court concluded that the Commission did not engage in piecemealing, improper deferral of environmental review or inadequate consideration of alternatives, and was not required under California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15052, subdivision (a)(2) (“CEQA Guidelines”) to step in as the lead agency for the lease modification.

Background

In 2010, the City of Huntington Beach approved a subsequent EIR to the initially certified 2005 EIR for the desalination project. There were no legal challenges to the 2010 subsequent EIR.

In 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board amended its Water Quality Control Plan to include a Desalination Amendment, which updated methods for intake and discharge systems in desalination facilities. The Desalination Amendment also required the Regional Water Quality Control Board to conduct an analysis under Water Code section 13142.5, subdivision (b) of all new and expanded desalination facilities and required that the owner or operator evaluate a reasonable range of nearby sites for subsurface intakes. In response, Poseidon modified the project in 2016 and 2017 to include (1) one-millimeter steel screens on the offshore intake pipeline to reduce impingement and entrainment; (2) three-port diffusers to diffuse brine discharge reentering the ocean; and (3) a reduction of the seawater intake volume of the Project by 45.3 million gallons per day.

In 2017, the Commission, as a responsible agency, elected to prepare a supplemental EIR for the proposed lease modification project, which incorporated the 2010 subsequent EIR by reference. California Coastkeeper Alliance filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the certification of the 2017 EIR.

The Court of Appeal’s Opinion

Decision to Prepare a Supplemental EIR

The court determined that substantial evidence supported the Commission’s decision to prepare a supplemental EIR instead of a subsequent EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15163, the 2017 version of the project consisted of only minor additions or changes from the 2010 version. Therefore, the Commission did not prejudicially abuse its discretion.

Assuming the Lead Agency Role

Rejecting the petitioners’ contention that the Commission was required to assume lead agency status under CEQA Guidelines section 15052, the court concluded that this requirement was inapplicable. A proper determination to prepare a supplemental EIR, rather than a subsequent EIR, removes the subsequent environmental review from the scope of CEQA Guidelines section 15052. Thus, the Commission was not required to step in as the lead agency. The court also rejected the petitioners’ argument that the Commission “acted like” a lead agency during the review process, stating that it acted like a responsible agency because a supplemental EIR is subject to the same notice and public review requirements as the initial draft EIR.

Piecemealing

Petitioners claimed that the Commission illegally piecemealed the project by only reviewing the lease modification project, and not the entire desalination project. The court explained, however, that the 2017 EIR incorporated by reference the 2010 EIR, which was never challenged and thus presumed to comply with CEQA for purposes of use by the Commission. The Commission was thus only required to analyze the changes to the project since the 2010 subsequent EIR, which it did. Further, the court rejected the petitioners’ contention that the Commission deferred parts of the environmental review analysis to other agencies. Again, the Commission satisfied its requirements by analyzing the impacts associated with the proposed enhancements to the project in combination with the previously analyzed impacts.

Consideration of Alternatives and Current Conditions

Petitioners also challenged the Commission’s consideration of alternatives to the project on several grounds, all of which the court rejected. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, the court concluded that the 2017 supplemental EIR considered a reasonable range of alternatives, including an intake pipeline extension and a two-port brine diffuser. The court held that the Commission was not required to reevaluate alternatives that were considered and rejected in the 2010 subsequent EIR, nor was it required to consider alternatives beyond those relevant to the proposed modifications.

The court also dismissed the petitioners’ assertion that changes in Orange County’s water needs supplanted the need for the project because they failed to lay out evidence in support of their position, which was fatal to their claim. Even if they had provided evidence in support of their claim, the court reasoned, substantial evidence in the record supported the Commission’s conclusion that Orange County still needed the project to add to its water supply.

Lastly, the court determined that the Commission was not required to consider the Orange County Water District’s (“OCWD”) construction of a new water distribution option involving injection wells and pipelines as a reasonably foreseeable project change. Based on the record, the court concluded that any consideration by OCWD of a different water distribution system than what was reviewed in the 2010 EIR was merely speculative and not reasonably foreseeable. The court held that the Commission had no way to know the particulars of a potential new distribution system, and therefore an EIR could not provide meaningful information on such a speculative change.

First District Court of Appeal Rejects CEQA Claims for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies and Finds General Plan Arguments Not a CEQA Issue

General Posted by   

In Stop Syar Expansion v. County of Napa (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 444, a partially published opinion, the First District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s denial of a writ petition challenging the EIR for an expansion of Syar Industries, Inc.’s aggregate operation in Napa County. The court concluded that the petitioner, Stop Syar Expansion (SSE), failed to exhaust its administrative remedies because it did not comply with Napa County’s local appellate procedures. In addition, the court held that SSE’s argument that the project is inconsistent with the County’s General Plan was not a CEQA issue and SSE therefore failed to properly raise the issue. Further, the court determined that SSE’s argument lacked merit because the County had adequately addressed potential inconsistency issues and reached a reasonable conclusion that the project was consistent with the General Plan.

Exhaustion Doctrine

Citing Tahoe Vista Concerned Citizens v. County of Placer (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 577 (“Tahoe Vista”), the court emphasized that the burden is on the petitioner in a CEQA case to demonstrate that it exhausted its administrative remedies prior to filing suit by complying with the procedures applicable to the public agency in question. SSE was therefore required to demonstrate that it complied with the procedures in chapter 2.88 of the Napa County Code of Ordinances by timely filing a notice of intent to appeal and timely submitting an appeal packet which specifically identified the grounds it raises in its petition. The court noted that a list of string-cites to the administrative record without explanation as to how each citation supports the assertion the public agency was fairly apprised of the asserted noncompliance with CEQA, is not sufficient to meet the petitioner’s burden.

Consistency with the County’s General Plan

The court also addressed SSE’s contention that the EIR failed to consider whether the project was consistent with the County’s General Plan. The court held that the issue, as presented by SSE, was not a CEQA issue. Thus, the mandate procedures provided for CEQA violations under Public Resources Code section 21168.9 did not apply. SSE was therefore required to assert this cause of action under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 for ordinary mandamus. SSE failed to ask for leave to amend its writ petition to add a cause of action under section 1085 in the trial court, and therefore, the claim was not properly before the court.

Further, the court noted, the standard of review for an agency’s consistency determination with its own General Plan is highly deferential to the agency. Such a decision can only be reversed if it is based on evidence from which no reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion. The court concluded that SSE did not make any General Plan inconsistency arguments based on this applicable standard of review. The court rejected SSE’s contention that it was not challenging the County’s substantive consistency determination and that a different standard of review should apply because SSE had argued that the EIR failed to disclose inconsistencies with the General Plan.

Finally, even if SSE had made its arguments under the proper standard—which the court reiterated it did not—the court held that the County addressed the project’s consistency with the General Plan at length in both the EIR and in a “General Plan Consistency Analysis.” The court concluded by noting that it is not the court’s place to “micromanage” the County’s determination whether a project is consistent with its own General Plan.

More California Cities Eliminate Parking Minimums to Promote Low Carbon Transportation and Affordable Housing

General Posted by   

Cities in California are eliminating parking minimum requirements and beginning to implement parking maximums for new construction projects. The hope is that these changes will promote low carbon modes of transportation, such as public transit, biking, and walking and increase affordable housing.

Parking minimums are deeply rooted in planning regulations and city codes. Proponents of eliminating these requirements emphasize that parking minimums can contribute to an overreliance on automobiles, which stunts progress toward more walkable and public transit-oriented development and planning. There is also concern that parking minimums contribute to urban sprawl because the physical space required for parking forces new developments farther from city centers, and that parking minimums encourage less dense development. These concerns have prompted numerous cities throughout the state to revisit their parking policies.

For example, in January 2021, the Sacramento City Council voted to approve citywide zoning reforms in its General Plan, including abolishing parking minimums. Sacramento also pledged to begin studies on parking maximums. These changes will still need to be codified in the city’s zoning code, which will likely be voted on later this year. The city’s shift is designed to reduce car trips, allow more efficient use of land, and provide the density and ridership necessary to support more transit services, which will reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and GHG emissions. Sacramento also hopes that reducing parking in the city will create more space for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure, which will help incentivize those modes of travel over single-occupancy vehicles. Public comments at the City Council meeting included some criticism of increasing density, but most comments were supportive of the city’s decision.

Also in January 2021, City of Berkeley officials voted to eliminate off-street parking requirements for new developments. The city determined that parking minimum requirements often thwart the construction of new housing. The city’s changes include exceptions for neighborhoods at risk for fire danger and streets that are narrower than 26 feet. The city also implemented parking maximums in transit-rich areas. Off-street residential parking cannot be offered at a rate of more than 0.5 spaces per unit for projects located within 0.25 miles of a high-quality transit corridor.

In 2018, San Francisco passed an ordinance that eliminated parking minimums citywide, for all uses. Parking is no longer required for any new developments anywhere in San Francisco. Most use types are also prohibited from providing more than 0.5–1.5 spaces, depending on the zoning of the district.

Critics of the elimination of parking minimums are concerned about areas that lack public transit options. This concern is one of the reasons that some cities have not eliminated minimums. In Los Angeles, for example, the public transit system lacks service in many areas and provides much longer travel times than single-occupancy vehicles. Parking minimums in the city require most apartments to provide one or two parking spots per unit and commercial properties are required to have one space for every 100 to 200 square feet, which often amounts to more space for parking than the business itself. Los Angeles’ lack of public transit and sprawling landscape, however, make it more difficult for the city to implement city-wide changes to its parking requirements.

The current housing crisis is another reason some cities are revisiting their parking policies. The elimination of parking minimums for new developments can promote construction of affordable housing. Parking minimums are costly for developers and limit design options. Parking also takes up a substantial amount of space, which reduces the number of housing units that can be built for a given project. Fewer parking spaces could mean more units built per project, with more of those units being designated as affordable. Urban landscapes in California may become more affordable and less polluted as these trends continue to unfold throughout the state.

Supreme Court of the U.S. Holds that Draft Biological Opinions that are Pre-decisional and Deliberative Are Protected from Disclosure Under FOIA By the Deliberative Process Privilege

General Posted by   

On March 4, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States in United States Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, Inc. (2021) 141 S.Ct. 777, in an opinion written by newly appointed Justice Barrett and joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, reversed in part the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in holding that the deliberative process privilege protects Draft Biological Opinions (B.O.s) from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) if the Draft B.O.s are pre-decisional and deliberative, even if they represent an agency’s last views on a proposed action.

BACKGROUND

In 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a rule on the design and operation of cooling water intake structures intended for use in industrial facilities, to make use of technology to minimize adverse environmental impacts. (See 79 Fe. Reg. 22174 (2001).) Even still, these cooling structures would kill a certain amount of fish and other aquatic species, some of which might be federally protected (threatened or endangered). Accordingly, under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the EPA consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), both of which began preparation of Draft B.O.s in order to make their jeopardy determinations, i.e., whether or not the EPA’s proposal would jeopardize the continued existence of a protected species. Informal consultation with these agencies began in 2012 and formal consultation began in 2013. Multiple documents were exchanged between agencies during this time.

In November 2013, the EPA revised its proposed rule in response to consultation, and USFWS/NMFS tentatively agreed to provide the EPA with their Draft B.O.s by December 6th and Final documents by December 20th. Both Draft B.O.s concluded that the proposed rule likely would jeopardize protected species. Neither agency formally approved their Draft B.O. or presented them to the EPA by the deadline and, instead, both agencies concluded that more work needed to be done. As well, the EPA was still internally debating its rule, therefore all parties agreed to extend the period of consultation.

By March 2014, the EPA had revised its proposed rule again from the 2013 version, in a manner that allowed USFWS/NMFS to issue a joint no-jeopardy determination, after which the EPA issued its final rule that same day. Sierra Club made FOIA requests to USFWS/NMFS regarding their consultation on this rule, and both agencies invoked the deliberative process privilege for the Draft B.O.s of EPA’s 2013 proposed rule. Sierra Club sued in the Northern District of California, and won on this issue. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s decision on this issue. The Supreme Court grant certiorari.

ANALYSIS

FOIA mandates the disclosure of documents held by federal agencies upon request unless one of nine exemptions apply. One such exemption is the deliberative process privilege, which protects documents from FOIA requests if they reflect an agency’s preliminary thinking about an issue, as opposed to its final opinion. The deliberative process privilege exists to encourage agency candor so as to improve decisionmaking and avoid the “chilling effect” that can occur when an agency believes its internal discussion may be made public. Pre-decisional, deliberative documents are exempt from disclosure under this privilege, whereas documents indicating final agency opinion must be disclosed. This does not mean, however, that the last document prepared by the agency is necessarily a final document.  As Justice Barrett put it, sometimes a document does not present a final opinion upon which an agency has settled and is only considered final at all because nothing else follows it, because the proposed action upon which it is based “dies on the vine.” Further, whether or not the agency producing the document treats it as final is a primary determining factor.

Here, the Sierra Club contended that the 2013 Draft B.O.s, with their jeopardy determinations, must be considered final under prior precedent because they forced the EPA to change its rule in response. According to Justice Barrett, however,  the precedent cited by Sierra Club was inapposite and the Draft B.O.s prepared in response to the EPA’s 2013 proposed rule were simply draft documents that “died on the vine” when the EPA changed its rule in 2014, and did not represent final agency opinions. She reasoned that, because the 2013 Draft B.O.s were not made available to the EPA, they were still “subject to change.” Even if they had been made available to the EPA, existing regulations would still allow them to be revised. Justice Barrett further found that the gap in time between due dates for the 2013 Draft B.O.s and their Final counterparts indicated their deliberative nature, for why would there be a two-week gap between draft and final unless revisions were anticipated? Mostly though, the court relied on the fact that neither the USFWS nor NMFS had finalized their 2013 Draft B.O.s—they were unapproved by agency decisionmakers and not forwarded to the EPA—as evidence showing that the agencies did not view them as final and thereby proving their lack of finality. These documents then were not really Draft B.O.s but instead were “drafts of draft[s].” They may have contained the last words on the 2013 proposed rule but were not intended to be final.

DISSENT

Justice Breyer penned a dissent, joined by Justice Sotomayor, in which he questioned the majority’s position that the documents were “drafts of drafts,” and asserted that Draft B.O.s do not normally “enjoy” the deliberative process privilege. The dissent preferred a more in-depth factual analysis to determine finality of the documents, and would have liked the question remanded to allow the Ninth Circuit to determine exactly how much more work needed to be done on the draft documents to establish whether they were closer to draft or final documents. Justice Breyer also noted the long agency history of disclosing Draft B.O.s to the public.

– Casey Shorrock

First District Holds that Deficiencies in Notice Did Not Excuse CEQA Litigants from Exhausting Available Administrative Remedies

General Posted by   

The First District Court of Appeal in Schmid v. City and County of San Francisco (Feb. 1, 2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 470, held that Appellants’ CEQA claims were barred by their failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, even where deficiencies in the notice excused the litigants from satisfying the exhaustion requirements under Public Resources Code section 21177.

BACKGROUND

The “Early Days” statue, located in San Francisco’s Civic Center, is part of the “Pioneer Monument”—a series of five bronze sculptures memorializing the pioneer era when California was founded. The statue depicts three figures, including a reclining Native American over whom bends a Catholic priest. Public criticism has surrounded the statue since its installation in 1894.  

In 2018, after charges of the statue’s racial insensitivity resurfaced, the San Francisco Arts Commission and the San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) granted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to remove the statue and place it in storage. In granting that approval, the HPC determined the removal of the statue was categorically exempt from CEQA. There were no issues raised at the HPC hearing about a perceived need for environmental review. Nor were there any appeals of HPC’s CEQA determination to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. 

Appellants, two opponents of the statue’s removal, appealed the HPC’s adoption of the COA to the San Francisco Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals initially voted to overturn the COA, but later had it reinstated. After the Board of Appeals approved the COA, the City immediately removed the statue the following morning. 

Appellants filed suit seeking to overturn the Board of Appeals’ order authorizing removal of the statue. They alleged violations of constitutional and statutory law, including CEQA. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend. On the CEQA claims, the trial court found Appellants failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. Appellants appealed.

COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
The Court of Appeal explained that CEQA litigants must comply with two exhaustion requirements. First, Public Resources Code section 21177 requires that a would-be CEQA petitioner must object during the administrative process and that all allegations raised in the litigation must have been presented to the agency before the challenged decision is made. Second, a would-be CEQA petitioner must exhaust all remedies that are available at the administrative level, including any available administrative appeals. Under Public Resources Code section 21151, a CEQA determination made by a nonelected decision-making body of a local agency may be appealed to the agency’s elected decision-making body, if any. The CEQA Guidelines encourage local agencies to establish procedures for such appeals. As relevant here, the San Francisco Administrative Code requires that appeals of CEQA determinations must be made to the Board of Supervisors, as the body of elected officials responsible for making final CEQA determinations.

The Court of Appeal found Appellants failed to comply with both exhaustion requirements. They did not object to the HCP’s determination that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA during the administrative process and they did exhaust administrative appeals available under the San Francisco Administrative Code. Specifically, on the second point, although Appellants appealed the HPC’s decision to the Board of Appeals, they failed to exhaust available remedies because they did not separately appeal the HPC’s CEQA determination to the Board of Supervisors, as required under the City’s Code.

Appellants argued they were excused from both exhaustion requirements because the City failed to provide adequate notice. The court agreed with Appellants in part, finding that Appellants were not required to comply with the statutory exhaustion requirements in section 21177 because there was no notice in advance of the HPC meeting that a categorical exemption might be on the agenda. But, the court explained, the inadequate CEQA notice did not excuse Appellants from complying with the requirement in the City’s Code that CEQA determinations must be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. The court also noted that Appellants had notice of the HPC’s CEQA determination because they appealed it, improperly, to the Board of Appeals. Because Appellants failed to appeal the CEQA determination to the appropriate body, they forfeited their right to bring a CEQA action.

Futility Argument
Appellants also argued they should be excused from exhausting their administrative remedies because doing so would have been futile. Citing a Board of Supervisors resolution that was not in the record, Appellants argued that an appeal to the proper board would have been futile because the Board of Supervisors already adopted a definitive position that the statue should be taken down. The court rejected this argument, stating that even if the Board of Supervisors held this view as a policy matter, it still could have disagreed with the process of removal and opted for an EIR. In addition, the Court concluded that the Board of Supervisors was never presented with any arguments concerning the appropriateness of a categorical exemption, and thus any argument regarding how the Board of Supervisors would have responded was pure speculation.

– Veronika Morrison 

Sixth District Holds City’s Failure to Send Notice of Determination Did Not Excuse Plaintiff’s Failure to Name Indispensable Party Within Limitations Period

General Posted by   

The Sixth District Court of Appeal in Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso v. City of San Jose (Feb. 9, 2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 783, held that the City of San Jose’s failure to send a Notice of Determination to a member of the petitioner organization, in violation of Public Resources Code section 21167, subdivision (f), did not excuse the petitioner’s failure to name an indispensable party in a CEQA action before the statute of limitations expired.

BACKGROUND

A light industrial center project was planned for construction on a primarily fallow farmland site in San Jose. Mark Espinoza, a member of the petitioner organization, Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso, requested that the City’s environmental project manager place him on the list to receive the Notice of Determination (NOD) for the Project.
Later that month, Microsoft Corporation purchased land from the original owner and took over as the project applicant. The San Jose City Council initially approved the project and associated EIR at an October 2017 meeting. The meeting agenda incorrectly referenced the previous landowner instead of Microsoft. Microsoft was, however, correctly referred to as the project applicant at the hearing. A second meeting was held to reconsider the project approval and EIR in December 2017. The notice for that hearing correctly identified Microsoft as the property owner, but the resolution approving the project incorrectly referenced the previous owners.

The City filed two NODs for the project. The first NOD, which was sent to Espinoza, listed the wrong project applicant. The City later realized the mistake and issued a second NOD that correctly listed Microsoft as the applicant. The City did not send Espinoza the second NOD.

The petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate within 30 days of the first NOD, alleging violations of CEQA and the Planning and Zoning Law. The petition named the previous property owners as real party in interest, based on the information in the first NOD. Two weeks after the 30-day statute of limitations for the CEQA cause of action expired, the previous owners’ attorney notified the petitioner’s counsel that Microsoft had acquired the property and was named as the applicant in the second NOD. A month after receiving this notice—and well after the 30-day limitations period had run—the petitioner filed an amended petition naming Microsoft as a real party in interest.

Microsoft and the City demurred to the CEQA action in the amended petition, arguing that it was time-barred because petitioner failed to name Microsoft as the real party in interest before the limitations period expired. The trial court determined that the initial petition was defective for failing to join Microsoft, and consequently dismissed the CEQA cause of action as untimely.

COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION

Failure to Name Applicant in NOD as Real Party in Interest
Under Public Resources Code section 21167.6.5, subdivision (a), in addition to naming as a defendant the agency that approved the project, a petitioner must name as a real party in interest the “person or persons identified by the public agency” in the NOD. Here, the petitioner did not dispute that Microsoft was a necessary and indispensable party under CEQA because it was named as the applicant in the NOD. Instead, the petitioner argued that its failure to name Microsoft should be excused because the NOD sent by the City named the wrong party and the City did not resend the new NOD after the error was corrected. The court disagreed.

Although the court acknowledged the City violated Public Resources Code section 21167, subdivision (f), by failing to send the second, corrected NOD to Espinoza, it concluded that CEQA contains no relief for the City’s violation. The court ruled that the City’s violation could not excuse or cure the amended petition’s untimeliness because Public Resources Code section 21167, subdivision (f), itself provides that the “date upon which [the NOD] is mailed shall not affect” the statute of limitations. The court also cited the Supreme Court’s emphasis that potential CEQA litigants must pay close attention to NOD filings before initiating litigation.

Additionally, the court reasoned that the second NOD was properly filed with the county clerk, posted at the county clerk’s office, and made available for review by all potential litigants—thereby providing constructive notice of the correct parties to name in a potential action. The court further noted that petitioner had actual notice of Microsoft’s status as the applicant because it had participated in the public hearings at which Microsoft was identified and the public notice for the City’s re-approval hearing listed Microsoft as the owner.

Because the petitioner failed to name Microsoft within the 30-day statute of limitation period after the corrected NOD was filed, the court held that the trial court’s dismissal was appropriate.

Material Defect
The petitioner also argued that the 30-day statute of limitations was not triggered because the NOD was materially defective, and therefore, the 180-day limitations period should apply. The court easily rejected this argument because the petitioner did not claim that the second NOD was insufficient or incorrect. The petitioner only claimed that the posting of two contradictory NODs essentially amounted to an NOD defect. The court disagreed, determining that the second NOD contained all required information and was therefore not defective.

Relation-Back Doctrine
The court also disagreed with the petitioner’s argument that the relation back doctrine under Code of Civil Procedure section 474 should apply. The court determined the petitioner’s ignorance of Microsoft’s status as the project applicant was unreasonable because the second NOD was correct and provided constructive notice of Microsoft’s identity. Additionally, the petitioner had received actual notice of the second NOD from the former owners’ attorney and still proceeded to wait two months to file its amended petition—a delay, which the court pointed out, was longer than even the initial limitations period.

Estoppel
Finally, the court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the City and Microsoft should have been equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense. It concluded that even if the City’s failure to send Espinoza the second NOD was intentional, the petitioner’s reliance on that failure would be unreasonable. Again, the City’s timely filing of the second NOD with the county clerk’s office gave all potential litigants constructive notice of the correct parties to name in a CEQA action.

– Veronika Morrison

First District Holds Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Failure to Impose Mitigation Requirements Through CEQA Process Did Not Preclude it from Later Imposing Those Requirements Pursuant to Its Authority Under the Porter-Cologne Act

General Posted by   

The First District Court of Appeal in Santa Clara Valley Water District v. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 199, held that CEQA did not preclude the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, acting as a responsible agency under CEQA, from imposing additional waste discharge requirements via the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, beyond the mitigation measures imposed during the CEQA process.

Background

Every 10-20 years, the Upper Berryessa Creek—which drains from the Diablo Range Hills to the Coyote Creek tributary, and ultimately into the San Francisco Bay—floods the nearby areas of Milpitas and San Jose. In the 1980s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began working on plans to build a flood control project on the creek, but the project did not move forward until 2013, when construction of a nearby BART station that could be impacted by flooding was proposed.

In 2015, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District), acting as the lead agency under CEQA, issued a Draft EIR for the project. That same month, the Corps applied to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for a section 401 Clean Water Act certification for the project.

The District later issued the Final EIR for the project, and the RWQCB’s executive officer issued the section 401 certification. As a CEQA responsible agency, the RWQCB found that all impacts within its jurisdiction would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels but clarified that it would later consider waste discharge requirements (WDRs) pursuant to its authority under the Porter-Cologne Act to address impacts to waters and wetlands that were not handled by the section 401 certificate.

In 2017, when project construction was nearly complete, the RWQCB issued a WDR order that required the Corps and the District to provide addition mitigation for the project’s impacts to waters and wetlands. The order stated that it suspended and replaced the prior 401 certification.

The District filed a petition for writ of mandate against the RWQCB, challenging the WDR order under CEQA, as well as section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the Porter-Cologne Act, and other state laws. The trial court denied the petition. The District appealed.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

On appeal, the District argued the RWQCB violated CEQA because: (1) the RWQCB’s failure to impose mitigation requirements as part of the RWQCB’s CEQA review barred it from imposing mitigation via the WDR order; and (2) the RWQCB prejudicially abused its discretion by failing to support the mitigation requirements with substantial evidence. The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments.

Relying on CEQA Guidelines section 15096, the District argued that the RWQCB’s only opportunity to impose mitigation was through the CEQA process. CEQA Guidelines section 15096 provides that a responsible agency that disagrees with the adequacy of a lead agency’s EIR must either sue the lead agency within 30 days, be deemed to have waived any objections to the EIR, prepare a subsequent EIR if legitimate grounds exist, or, assume the role of a lead agency as provided by Guidelines section 15052, subdivision (a)(3). Because the RWQCB did not challenge the District’s certification of the EIR or find that a subsequent EIR was required, the District argued that the EIR was deemed adequate and no additional mitigation measure could be imposed. As explained by the court, however, Public Resources section 21174 includes a savings clause that makes clear that CEQA does not prevent an agency from exercising it independent authority under statutes other than CEQA. The court determined, therefore, that the RWQCB did not violate CEQA by issuing the WDRs because it did so pursuant to its duties under the Porter-Cologne Act. Although the District, acting as lead agency, had not imposed CEQA mitigation measures requiring WDRs, the RWQCB, as a responsible agency, was not precluded from separately discharging its authority under the Porter-Cologne Act. Although the appellate court noted that unified CEQA review and other environmental regulation should be the norm, there may be times when an agency’s own environmental regulation can take place after CEQA review, as recognized by Public Resources Code section 21174.

The court also rejected the District’s claim that the RWQCB’s WDR order imposed “excessive” mitigation that was not supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that the District failed to engage in sufficient analysis of the evidence supporting the RWQCB’s conclusions, and therefore, failed to carry its burden. The court also concluded that the District’s arguments lacked merit even if they had been properly briefed because the RWQCB’s determinations were supported by substantial evidence.

– Bridget McDonald

Fifth District Court of Appeal Upholds Trial Court’s Refusal to Order Partial Decertification of EIR, Noting Conflict With Other Districts

General Posted by   

In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 979, a partially published opinion, the Fifth District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s refusal to issue a narrow writ following the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 (Friant Ranch). Rejecting the concept that an EIR can be partially decertified, the court determined that the trial court properly directed the County to decertify the entire EIR and vacate the project approvals. In the alternative, the court held that, even if the partial decertification of an EIR can sometimes be an available remedy, that remedy was not available in this case.

The underlying Friant Ranch case involved a CEQA action challenging a proposed master-planned community in Fresno County (“the project”). In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the EIR for the project violated CEQA because it failed to include an adequate discussion of public health impacts from air pollutants generated by the project, and ordered the Court of Appeal to “remand the matter for additional proceedings consistent” with its opinion. On remand, the trial court issued a writ of mandate ordering the County to “[v]acate or set aside” the project approvals, “and not approve the project before preparing a revised EIR.” Real Party in Interest, Friant Ranch L.P., and the County filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the judgment and writ, arguing that the trial court drafted an overbroad writ, and should have only partially decertified the EIR, leaving most of the project’s approvals in place. The trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s judgment and writ on two alternative grounds. First, the court held that an EIR cannot be partially decertified under Public Resources Code section 21168.9, subdivision (a), and the County therefore was required to decertify the entire EIR and vacate the project approvals. That section gives courts the authority to direct an agency “to void, in whole or in part, a determination, finding or decision made in violation of CEQA” (emphasis added).  But, the court reasoned, Public Resources Code sections 21100, subdivision (a) and 21151, subdivision (a), and Guidelines section 15090, subdivision (a)(2), require public agencies to certify “the completion of the EIR” in compliance with CEQA. Thus, the court found that an EIR cannot be partially certified; it is either complete or not.

The court cited its opinion in LandValue 77, LLC v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 675 (LandValue 77), where it previously held that partial certification of an EIR is not consistent with CEQA. The court conceded that other courts of appeal have since disagreed with the holding in LandValue 77. For example, in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1245 (CBD III), the Second District Court of Appeal held that partial decertification is permissible under section 21168.9, subdivision (a). And, in Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, the Fourth District criticized LandValue 77’s rejection of partial certification in dicta. The Fifth District Court of Appeal concluded that those opinions did not explain how an agency can certify an EIR “in part” under sections 21100(a) or 21151(a), and therefore, the court found those cases unconvincing.

The court went on to find, in the alternative, that even if partial certification is allowed under CEQA, it was inappropriate in this case. In CBD III, the Second District Court of Appeal stated that partial certification is permissible “so long as a court makes a severance finding under [Public Resources Code] section 21168.9(b).” Here, the court determined that severance was not proper, for reasons explained only in the unpublished portion of the decision. Finally, the court determined that its decision in this case would not result in unfair new challenges to the EIR because most of the components of the EIR had already been litigated and resolved. Any arguments on those issues would therefore be barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, and CEQA’s exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement.

As the court acknowledged in this case, the Courts of Appeal are divided over whether partial decertification of an EIR is permissible under CEQA. While the Fifth District believes it is an “oxymoron” to conclude an agency can partially “certify the completion of” an EIR, other districts disagree.

1112131415