Project Built at Variance With EIR Subject to Late CEQA Lawsuit

by Snell & Wilmer
Contact

Ordinarily the threat of a lawsuit under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) passes once the statute of limitation expires – in most cases 30 days after the filing of a Notice of Determination.  But a recent Court of Appeal decision illustrates how a project may remain subject to CEQA litigation if it varies from the project description in the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”).

In Ventura Foothill Neighbors v. County of Ventura, — Cal.Rptr.3d —, 2014 WL 7021891 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.), a local community group sued Ventura County under CEQA for building a medical clinic building 15 feet higher than described in the EIR.  The trial court ruled in favor of the community group, and ordered the County to prepare a supplemental EIR and mitigate any new significant environmental impacts.  The Court of Appeal affirmed.

The County prepared an EIR in 1993 for the construction of a 75-foot-tall clinic building.  In 1994, the County’s Board of Supervisors certified the EIR, approved the project, and filed a Notice of Determination (“NOD”).  Under CEQA, the filing of a NOD starts the running of a 30-day statute of limitation to file a lawsuit challenging the EIR.  Pub. Res. Code, §21167(c).  But the County put off construction for over a decade.  In 2005, the County decided to proceed with the project, but in a slightly different location – 200 feet north, and 160 feet west of the original location.  For the relocated project, the County prepared an “Addendum” to the EIR.  The Addendum mentioned that the project location would be moved, but that the project would be “virtually the same size and configuration” as the original project, and that the impacts for the relocated project for height and view shed are less than and within the scope of analysis of the original EIR.  Therefore, the County concluded, no subsequent or supplemental EIR was required.  The Addendum did not mention that the building would be 90 feet tall, rather than 75 feet tall as described in the EIR.  The County filed another NOD after approving the Addendum.

Two years later, during project construction, a member of the community group discovered that the building would be built to 90 feet in height.  Within two months of that discovery the group filed its CEQA lawsuit.   The County argued that the CEQA lawsuit was barred by the 30-day statute of limitation.  But the Court of Appeal held that because neither the Addendum nor the NOD gave any notice of the increase in the building’s height, the 30-day statute of limitation was inapplicable.  Therefore, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment requiring the County to prepare a supplemental EIR and mitigate any new significant environmental impacts.[1]

 


[1] In the author’s opinion, both the trial court and the Court of Appeal erred in concluding as a matter of law that a supplemental EIR was required.  Whether a supplemental EIR is required depends upon whether there are “substantial changes” in the project requiring “major revisions” in the EIR.  14 Cal. Code Regs. §§15162, 15163.  An agency’s decision to not prepare a supplemental EIR is valid so long as it is supported by substantial evidence.  Ibid.; see Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1075.  The burden is on the challenger to demonstrate that the agency’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence.  Mani Bros. Real Estate Group v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1397.  Thus, rather than concluding as a matter of law that a 15-foot increase in the height of a building was a substantial change in the project warranting a supplemental EIR, the courts should have remanded the case to the County for further consideration of that issue.

- See more at: http://www.swlaw.com/blog/california-land-use-developments/2014/12/23/project-built-at-variance-with-eir-subject-to-late-ceqa-lawsuit-2/#sthash.Ml3ioHCZ.dpuf

Ordinarily the threat of a lawsuit under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) passes once the statute of limitation expires – in most cases 30 days after the filing of a Notice of Determination.  But a recent Court of Appeal decision illustrates how a project may remain subject to CEQA litigation if it varies from the project description in the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”).

In Ventura Foothill Neighbors v. County of Ventura, — Cal.Rptr.3d —, 2014 WL 7021891 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.), a local community group sued Ventura County under CEQA for building a medical clinic building 15 feet higher than described in the EIR.  The trial court ruled in favor of the community group, and ordered the County to prepare a supplemental EIR and mitigate any new significant environmental impacts.  The Court of Appeal affirmed.

The County prepared an EIR in 1993 for the construction of a 75-foot-tall clinic building.  In 1994, the County’s Board of Supervisors certified the EIR, approved the project, and filed a Notice of Determination (“NOD”).  Under CEQA, the filing of a NOD starts the running of a 30-day statute of limitation to file a lawsuit challenging the EIR.  Pub. Res. Code, §21167(c).  But the County put off construction for over a decade.  In 2005, the County decided to proceed with the project, but in a slightly different location – 200 feet north, and 160 feet west of the original location.  For the relocated project, the County prepared an “Addendum” to the EIR.  The Addendum mentioned that the project location would be moved, but that the project would be “virtually the same size and configuration” as the original project, and that the impacts for the relocated project for height and view shed are less than and within the scope of analysis of the original EIR.  Therefore, the County concluded, no subsequent or supplemental EIR was required.  The Addendum did not mention that the building would be 90 feet tall, rather than 75 feet tall as described in the EIR.  The County filed another NOD after approving the Addendum.

Two years later, during project construction, a member of the community group discovered that the building would be built to 90 feet in height.  Within two months of that discovery the group filed its CEQA lawsuit.   The County argued that the CEQA lawsuit was barred by the 30-day statute of limitation.  But the Court of Appeal held that because neither the Addendum nor the NOD gave any notice of the increase in the building’s height, the 30-day statute of limitation was inapplicable.  Therefore, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment requiring the County to prepare a supplemental EIR and mitigate any new significant environmental impacts.[1]


[1] In the author’s opinion, both the trial court and the Court of Appeal erred in concluding as a matter of law that a supplemental EIR was required.  Whether a supplemental EIR is required depends upon whether there are “substantial changes” in the project requiring “major revisions” in the EIR.  14 Cal. Code Regs. §§15162, 15163.  An agency’s decision to not prepare a supplemental EIR is valid so long as it is supported by substantial evidence.  Ibid.; see Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1075.  The burden is on the challenger to demonstrate that the agency’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence.  Mani Bros. Real Estate Group v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1397.  Thus, rather than concluding as a matter of law that a 15-foot increase in the height of a building was a substantial change in the project warranting a supplemental EIR, the courts should have remanded the case to the County for further consideration of that issue.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Snell & Wilmer | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Snell & Wilmer
Contact
more
less

Snell & Wilmer on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.