Clews Land & Livestock, LLC v. City of San Diego, D071145

Background

Cal Coast sought permits to build a 5,340 sq. ft. private secondary school (Cal Coast Academy) on a ~1-acre site adjacent to Clews Land and Livestock's (CLL) commercial horse ranch; site contains a designated historic farmhouse but will not be altered.
City staff prepared an initial study and a mitigated negative declaration (MND); draft MND circulated, comments received (including from CLL and a fire consultant), and a final MND issued with clarifications and additional voluntary measures (e.g., shuttle, red-flag closures).
A City hearing officer (Process Three) adopted the MND and approved permits; CLL appealed the permits to the Planning Commission but did not timely appeal the hearing officer’s environmental determination to City Council per the City’s bifurcated appeal rules.
The Planning Commission ultimately affirmed approval; the City rejected CLL’s later attempt to appeal the environmental determination to City Council as untimely; Coastal Commission found no substantial issue.
CLL sued in superior court challenging the MND (alleging significant impacts: fire, traffic, noise, recreation, historic resources), the City’s appeal procedures, recirculation of the MND, and consistency with the Precise Plan; trial court denied relief and this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CLL exhausted administrative remedies before challenging the MND	CLL argued City appealed procedures and notices misled it; it reasonably treated its Planning Commission appeal as encompassing the environmental appeal	City/Cal Coast argued CLL failed to timely appeal the hearing officer's environmental determination to City Council as required under SDMC §112.0520	CLL failed to exhaust administrative remedies; appeal barred. Court: City’s bifurcated Process Three procedures were valid and CLL should have appealed to City Council concurrently.
Whether adoption of the MND was improper (i.e., whether an EIR was required)	CLL contended substantial evidence supported a fair argument of significant impacts (fire hazards, traffic, noise, recreation, historic resources) requiring an EIR	City/Cal Coast argued record lacks substantial evidence of potentially significant environmental impacts; mitigation and compliance items addressed concerns	On the merits (alternative holding), no fair argument: MND adoption was supported — no substantial evidence that project would cause significant unmitigable impacts.
Whether the final MND required recirculation due to new/changed mitigation or new information	CLL asserted shuttle plan, red-flag closures, evacuation/brush-management details and other post-circulation materials were new mitigation requiring recirculation	City argued the added measures were voluntary/clarifying, not new avoidable significant effects or required mitigation under Guidelines §15073.5	Recirculation not required: additions were voluntary or clarifying and did not present new avoidable significant effects.
Whether City complied with historic-resource rules and whether project conflicted with Precise Plan open-space designation	CLL claimed City should have used Process Four/Historic Resources Board and more extensive analysis of Mount Carmel Ranch historic resource; also said project conflicts with Precise Plan open-space designation	City argued project fit historic exemptions (minor/new construction consistent with standards), complied with HRG, and site is previously disturbed so development is consistent with open-space policies	No prejudicial abuse of discretion: City’s reliance on the historic exemptions and findings that development is on previously disturbed land were reasonable; consistency with Precise Plan not shown to be unreasonable.

Key Cases Cited

Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach, 52 Cal.4th 155 (explains fair-argument standard for negative declarations/MNDs)
California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist., 62 Cal.4th 369 (distinguishes analysis of environmental effects on project users vs. project impacts on environment)
Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi, 144 Cal.App.4th 865 (exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine; de novo review of applicability)
Tahoe Vista Concerned Citizens v. County of Placer, 81 Cal.App.4th 577 (administrative exhaustion bars court action where administrative appeal available and not pursued)
California Clean Energy Committee v. City of San Jose, 220 Cal.App.4th 1325 (delegation of CEQA authority and when failure to exhaust may be excused where certifying body lacked authority)
Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento, 124 Cal.App.4th 903 (definition of "may" and "fair argument" and substantial evidence standard)