Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 1976, the City of Santa Cruz sought to protect its urban forest by adopting the “Heritage Tree Ordinance,” which governs the protection of large trees and trees having other significance. The city later adopted the “Heritage Tree Removal Resolution,” which governs the removal of heritage trees. In 2013, the city amended both, concluding that these amendments were categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, 21000) because they assured the “maintenance, restoration, enhancement, and protection” of natural resources and the environment. Save Our Big Trees unsuccessfully sought a writ of mandate directing the city to set aside its amendments for failure to comply with CEQA. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the city had the burden to demonstrate with substantial evidence that the amendments fell within a categorical exemption to CEQA and failed to meet that burden. View "Save Our Big Trees v. City of Santa Cruz" on Justia Law

The Lakes Water System (LWS), created in the late 1800s-early 1900s, provides Vallejo with potable water. After completing a diversion dam and the Green Line for transmission, the city created two reservoirs, Lake Frey and Lake Madigan, which were soon insufficient to meet demand. The city began storing water in hills above Napa County’s Gordon Valley and constructed the Gordon transmission line. The city acquired easements from some property owners by agreeing to provide “free water.” The city also agreed to provide potable water to other nonresident customers. In the 1950s, the city obtained water rights from the Sacramento River Delta and contracted for water from the Solano Project. In 1992, water quality from Lake Curry ceased to meet standards and the city closed the Gordon Line. In 1992 the city passed an ordinance shifting the entire cost of LWS to 809 nonresident customers, so that their rates increased by 230 percent. The city passed additional rate increases in 1995 and 2009. Plaintiff, representing a purported class of nonresident LWS customers, alleges the city has grossly mismanaged and neglected LWS, placing the burden on the Class to fund a deteriorating, inefficient, and costly system, spread over an “incoherent service area” and plaintiff did not become aware of unfunded liabilities until 2013 The court of appeal affirmed dismissal; plaintiff cannot state any viable claims alleging misconduct by the city. View "Green Valley Landowners Ass'n v. City of Vallejo" on Justia Law

Real-Parties-in-Interest Plaza Camino Real, LP and CMF PCR, LLC (collectively, "Westfield") proposed to renovate a shopping center originally built in the City of Carlsbad over 40 years ago. The City approved Westfield's request to renovate a former Robinsons-May store and other small portions of the shopping center. North County Advocates challenged the City's approval under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), arguing the project's environmental impact report (EIR) used an improper baseline in its traffic analysis because it treated the Robinsons-May store as fully occupied, even though it was vacated in 2006 and had been only periodically occupied since. Advocates also argued the City violated CEQA by failing to consider as a mitigation measure that it require Westfield to make a fair share contribution to the future widening of the El Camino Real bridge over State Route 78 and by failing to respond adequately to public comments regarding traffic mitigation. The trial court rejected Advocates' CEQA challenges and awarded the City costs for staff time spent reviewing and certifying the administrative record Advocates prepared. Advocates appeals the trial court's CEQA and costs determinations. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's CEQA determinations. View "North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad" on Justia Law

The Partnership sought administrative mandamus against the City after the Commission declined to approve an eldercare facility proposed by the Partnership. The trial court denied mandamus, concluding that the Commission's findings were adequate to support its decision. The court concluded that the Partnership's challenge to the Commission's decision fails insofar as it relies on Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (Topanga I). The court further concluded that, in view of Jacobson v. County of Los Angeles and Topanga II, the Commission’s negative “benefit and burden” findings were adequate by themselves -- that is, independent of any supporting discussion -- to support the Commission’s decision under the standards set forth in Topanga I, even though the Commission’s findings used the language of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 14.3.1(E). The court rejected the Partnership's remaining contentions regarding the negative findings under section 14.3.1(E). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Levi Family P'ship v. City of LA" on Justia Law

The Contra Costa Water District oversaw construction of a dam, requiring acquisition of 20,000 acres from about 40 owners, relocating 13 miles of road, and installing 20 miles of water pipeline and 12 miles of gas line. A 586-acre tract acquired by the Nunns in 2006 is crossed by two strips of land, acquired by the District by condemnation in 1997. One was acquired to relocate Vasco Road. The other intersects Vasco Road at a right angle and contains an underground pipeline. Previous owners were awarded $964,000 in compensation. The property is partially planted with wine grapes and is subject to a Williamson Act contract restricting it to agricultural uses. The Nunns sought approval to subdivide the property into four lots and one remainder parcel.. Before completing the process, they abandoned their application, but asked the county to issue a certificate of compliance for each of the parts under Subdivision Map Act 66499.35(a), arguing that the condemnation had the effect of subdividing the property for purposes of the Act. Planning staff denied the request, but the Planning Commission reversed. The Board of Supervisors rejected appeals and issued the certificates. The trial court and court of appeal concluded that no legal authority supported the Nunns’ theory and vacated the approvals. View "Save Mount Diablo v. Contra Costa Cnty." on Justia Law

The controversial “8 Washington Street Project,” a plan to develop waterfront land near the San Francisco Ferry Building, includes “Seawall Lot 351,” which is currently owned by the City and County of San Francisco through its Port Commission, subject to the public trust for uses benefiting the people of California. The public trust restriction on the use of Seawall Lot 351 is inconsistent with the 8 Washington Street Project as conceived by the project developers. To remove this inconsistency, the Developers and the City devised a plan to transfer Seawall Lot 351 out of the public trust and replace it with a different parcel in a land exchange agreement with the State Lands Commission (SLC). SLC approved land exchange agreement, finding that the agreement was a statutorily exempt activity under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, 21000. Opponents challenged SLC’s reliance on a CEQA exemption for “settlements of title and boundary problems by the State Lands Commission and to exchanges or leases in connection with those settlements.” The trial court held and the court of appeal affirmed that the proposed land exchange agreement is not statutorily exempt from CEQA review. View "Defend Our Waterfront v. Cal State Lands Comm'n" on Justia Law

Simonelli’s May 6, 2013 administrative mandamus petition challenged the city’s February 5, 2013 approval of an application to develop a vacant lot. Her petition identified Pot D’Oro as the developer, but did not name Pot D’Oro as a party; attached exhibits attached disclosed that the lot was adjacent to Simonelli’s property. The city sought dismissal, arguing that Simonelli had failed to join an indispensable party, that her petition was unverified and was “uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible,” and that Simonelli should not be granted leave to amend because the 90-day limitations period (Code of Civil Procedure 1094.6) had expired. Simonelli filed no opposition and did not appear at the hearing. The court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The city later moved for a judgment of dismissal. Simonelli appeared at the hearing. The court granted the city’s motion. The court of appeal reversed. The court did not err in finding Pot D’Oro to be an indispensable party, but erred in denying Simonelli leave to amend because the court erroneously found that the 90-day limitations period set forth in section 1094.61 applied. View "Simonelli v. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea" on Justia Law

This appeal stems from a dispute between outdoor advertising companies and the City over certain billboards with digital displays. Plaintiff Summit Media filed a motion seeking, among other things, an order that “[a]ll digital displays and sign structures” identified in the trial court's April 2013 order “shall be demolished and removed . . . .” Real parties CBS Outdoor wished to resume the use of their sign structures to display static advertising, as they had before the illegal digital conversion. The trial court denied plaintiff's motion to demolish the signs and denied plaintiff's request for attorney fees. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to require either the demolition of the structural improvements or the removal of the digital equipment, and that plaintiff offers no persuasive authority for its claim. Further, the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff had a personal financial stake in this litigation that was sufficient to warrant its decision to incur significant attorney fees and costs in the vigorous prosecution of this lawsuit. View "Summit Media v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

In 1989, defendant-appellant City of San Clemente created the “Beach Parking Impact Fee” because the City anticipated that substantial residential development proposed for the City’s inland areas would significantly increase the demand for public parking at the City’s beaches. The City imposed the Beach Parking Impact Fee on all new residential developments outside the City’s coastal zone to defray the cost of acquiring and constructing new beach parking facilities. Between 1989 and 2009, the City collected nearly $10 million in Beach Parking Impact Fees and accrued interest, but the City spent less than $350,000 to purchase a vacant parcel on which it has not constructed any parking facilities. Plaintiffs and respondents Daniel Walker, as Trustee for the 1997 Walker Family Trust, and W. Justin McCarthy (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action to compel the City to refund the unused portion of the Beach Parking Impact Fee. Plaintiffs alleged the five-year findings the City made in 2009 failed to satisfy the Act’s requirements and did not justify the City’s continued retention of the unexpended Beach Parking Impact Fees because the increased parking demand had not materialized over the ensuing 20 years. The trial court agreed and entered judgment ordering the City to refund approximately $10.5 million in unexpended impact fees to the current property owners on which the fees were imposed. The City appealed, contending it satisfied the Mitigation Fee Act’s requirement of five-year findings when it “receive[d] and file[d]” a 2009 staff report. Upon review, the Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that the City failed to make the five-year findings as required. The Court found that the report’s findings were mere conclusions, not the specific findings required under the Act. Consequently, the City failed to justify its continued retention of the unexpended impact fees. View "Walker v. City of San Clemente" on Justia Law

This case was the third of a string of appeals before the Court of Appeal concerning the City of Irvine's attempt to stop a proposed expansion of the James A. Musick Jail Facility. In "Musick I," the cities of Irvine and Lake Forest challenged the 1996 certification of an environmental impact report, "EIR 564," involving a proposed expansion of the Facility from about 1200 inmates to 7,584 inmates. In Musick I, the Court overturned a trial court decision finding EIR 564 inadequate, finding that EIR 564 did indeed adequately disclose the impacts of the project. The 1996 project, however, did not go forward because the County did not consider it had the financial resources for it. Approximately ten years later, Realignment Act of 2011 was passed, which shifted responsibility for the custodial housing and post-release supervision of some felons from the state prison system to local jails and probation departments. Concomitant with realignment, legislation was passed making it easier for local government agencies to obtain state funds to build more local jail cells. The County revived its plans for the Musick jail expansion, and the County applied for state funds for the project. Irvine challenged the County's application for state funding of the expansion without a new EIR, even though the County, at roughly the same time as the application, had certified a supplemental EIR ("SEIR 564") dealing with the project in light of planned intervening changes in surrounding land uses. In "Musick II," the Court of Appeal concluded there was no need to prepare an EIR (or other appropriate environmental impact document) prior to merely applying for funds. In this case, "Musick III," Irvine directly challenged SEIR 564. There was one big intervening change in surrounding land use since the initial proposed expansion, which was the scrapping of a proposed international airport at the former El Toro Base in favor of a "Great Park," with some adjacent housing development. Irvine presented several challenges to SEIR 564 that centered on two environmental effects: impacts on local traffic intersections and the loss of agricultural land. Taking Irvine's arguments into consideration, the Court of Appeal concluded that SEIR 564 was legally unobjectionable, and denied Irvine the relief it requested. View "City of Irvine v. County of Orange" on Justia Law