Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles
201 Cal. App. 4th 455
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Ballona Wetlands, Morales, Surfrder Foundation (collectively Ballona Wetlands) and BEEP challenge the City of Los Angeles' revised EIR for Playa Vista phase two after a peremptory writ of mandate directed revisions.
- Phase two is a mixed-use development adjacent to Playa Vista phase one, with amendments required to the general and specific plans to permit more development than previously allowed on Area D.
- The prior appellate decision held the 2004 EIR was deficient for misrepresenting land use impacts and for failing to discuss preservation in place for historical archaeological resources; a peremptory writ required revision.
- The City revised the EIR addressing preservation in place, archaeology, wastewater, and a new global climate change section, and recirculated for public comment before certifying the revised EIR in 2010.
- BEEP filed a new writ of mandate in May 2010 challenging the revised project description, land use findings, and climate-change analyses; the trial court consolidated proceedings and later discharged the writ in 2011 with a costs award to City and Playa Capital.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding the revised EIR adequately discussed preservation in place and climate-change impacts, held postjudgment challenges on new issues barred, and upheld the costs award to the prevailing parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation in place adequacy | Ballona Wetlands argues the revised EIR failed to discuss preservation in place as required. | City/Playa Capital contends the revised EIR properly analyzed preservation in place and other mitigation. | Revised EIR adequately discusses preservation in place. |
| Sea level rise analysis and responses | Ballona/BEEP contend the revised EIR inadequately analyzes sea level rise impacts and responses to comments. | City/Greve provide more reliable estimates and contend the EIR need not discuss project-specific inundation. | Revised EIR's sea level rise discussion and responses are adequate. |
| Scope of postjudgment challenges and res judicata | BEEP asserts new challenges to project description and land use findings post-judgment. | City/Playa Capital argue such challenges are barred by postjudgment jurisdiction limits and res judicata. | New postjudgment challenges are barred; res judicata applies to late challenges. |
| Costs allocation | Ballona Wetlands and BEEP challenge the prevailing-party status and costs award to City/Playa Capital. | City/Playa Capital are prevailing parties on the May 2010 petition and entitled to costs. | City and Playa Capital are entitled to recover their costs as prevailing parties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com., 16 Cal.4th 105 (Cal. 1997) (CEQA interpreted to protect environment; public participation essential)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988) (EIR purpose to inform; public accountability in CEQA process)
- City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 176 Cal.App.4th 889 (Cal. App. 4th 2009) (EIR need not address all conceivable health effects from nearby facilities)
- SOCWA v. City of Dana Point, 196 Cal.App.4th 1604 (Cal. App. 4th 2011) (Identifies scope of environmental effects and hazards in EIR)
- Federation of Hillside & Canyon Assns. v. City of Los Angeles, 126 Cal.App.4th 1180 (Cal. App. 4th 2005) (Res judicata and postjudgment scope in CEQA contexts)
- Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors, 137 Cal.App.3d 964 (Cal. App. 1982) (Jurisdiction to enforce writ and postjudgment procedures)
- County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency, 76 Cal.App.4th 931 (Cal. App. 1999) (Abuse of discretion standards and CEQA review framework)
- City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (alternative citation), 280 Cal.App.4th 1008 (Cal. 2d Cir. 2009) (See above primary Long Beach citation; placeholder when needed)
- California Oak Foundation v. Regents of University of California, 188 Cal.App.4th 227 (Cal. App. 2010) (EIR standards for complete and good faith disclosure)