Cnty. of Ventura v. City of Moorpark
234 Cal.Rptr.3d 243
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Broad Beach Geologic Hazard Abatement District (BBGHAD) formed to restore ~46 acres of Broad Beach by depositing ~1.5 million+ cubic yards of sand over up to 20 years (initial + four major deposits, plus supplemental deposits).
- Sand primarily sourced from Grimes Rock and CEMEX quarries near State Route 23 (Fillmore/Moorpark area); each major deposit will generate substantial truck trips.
- City of Moorpark and BBGHAD executed a settlement agreement restricting haul routes, staging/parking, and requiring inclusion of route terms in contracts with haulers; agreement contained an amendment clause requiring mutual written consent.
- Coastal Commission approved the beach restoration project incorporating the settlement agreement; State Lands Commission later approved a lease.
- Ventura County and City of Fillmore challenged the project, arguing the settlement agreement is a separate nonexempt CEQA project, is preempted by Vehicle Code section 21, constitutes extraterritorial regulation by Moorpark, and that BBGHAD abdicated its police power by ceding route control.
- Trial court found the project exempt from CEQA, rejected preemption and extraterritoriality challenges, but held BBGHAD had abdicated police power in parts of the agreement; appellate court affirms exemption, rejects preemption/extraterritoriality, but finds parts of the agreement void/severable and remands with directions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement agreement and haul-route terms are part of a single CEQA "project" and whether the project is statutorily exempt | Appellants: the agreement is a distinct, nonexempt project requiring CEQA review | Respondents: the agreement is incidental to BBGHAD's improvement project and falls within the statutory exemption for geologic hazard abatement improvements | The agreement is part of the single BBGHAD project and the whole is exempt under the emergency/geologic-hazard exemption (§21080(b)(4)) |
| Whether Vehicle Code §21 preempts Moorpark from imposing haul-route restrictions | Appellants: state law occupies traffic control and preempts Moorpark's restrictions | Respondents: the restrictions are contractual terms, not ordinances/resolutions, thus §21 (which targets ordinances/resolutions) does not apply | No preemption: §21 addresses ordinances/resolutions, not private contracts; agreement enforceable as contract terms |
| Whether the haul-route provisions are an unlawful extraterritorial exercise of Moorpark's regulatory power | Appellants: Moorpark is effectively regulating outside city limits via the agreement | Respondents: Moorpark acted by contract to abate local nuisance and remedy harms within the city | No extraterritorial regulation problem: Moorpark exercised contracting power (valid) not regulatory/police power beyond limits |
| Whether BBGHAD unlawfully abdicated its police power by surrendering discretion to modify haul routes (and if so whether the agreement is severable) | Appellants: agreement permanently surrenders BBGHAD's discretion to change routes, voiding the agreement | Respondents: BBGHAD had authority to enter the agreement and retains adequate flexibility (or emergency exception) | Parts are void: clauses that bar BBGHAD from modifying routes (e.g., duration and unilateral-amendment prohibition) are invalid; those void provisions are severable and remaining route terms survive but must allow future modification by BBGHAD in changed circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Sunset Sky Ranch Pilots Assn. v. County of Sacramento, 47 Cal.4th 902 (California Supreme Court) (CEQA scope and construction of exemptions)
- Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com., 41 Cal.4th 372 (California Supreme Court) (CEQA three-tier process—project, exemption, EIR)
- RiverWatch v. Olivenhain Mun. Water Dist., 170 Cal.App.4th 1186 (Court of Appeal) (broad interpretation of "project" as "whole of an action")
- Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach, 211 Cal.App.4th 1209 (Court of Appeal) (definition of "separate projects")
- Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com., 17 Cal.3d 785 (California Supreme Court) (government may not contract away future exercise of police power)
- County Mobilehome Positive Action Com., Inc. v. County of San Diego, 62 Cal.App.4th 727 (Court of Appeal) (surrender of police power doctrine and voiding of abdication)