Defend Our Waterfront v. State Lands Commission
192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 790
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Seawall Lot 351 is state tidelands held in trust, later acquired by the City for Port uses, subject to public trust.
- The 8 Washington Street Project adjacent to Seawall Lot 351 seeks to develop a private swim/tennis complex and other facilities.
- Developers propose a land exchange with the State Lands Commission (SLC) to terminate the public trust in Seawall Lot 351 and swap for the 8 Washington parcel.
- SLC approved the land exchange in August 2012, finding the action statutorily exempt from CEQA under 21080.11 (settlements of title and boundary problems and related exchanges).
- Respondent challenges the exemption as inapplicable since there was no title/boundary dispute, and alleges improper notice and exhaustion issues under CEQA.
- Trial court held CEQA exhaustion applies via 21177, but that 21080.11 exemption does not apply; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CEQA exhaustion requirements apply | Respondent exhausted remedies by objections raised via FOGG members | Exhaustion requires notice and objections by respondent; not satisfied here | Exhaustion affirmed; but court still addresses merits separately |
| Whether the land exchange is exempt under 21080.11 | Exemption applies to settlements/exchanges resolving title/boundary problems | Exemption applies broadly to settlements of title problems and exchanges | Exemption does not apply; exchange unrelated to a title/boundary settlement |
| Whether proper notice satisfied CEQA requirements for exemption | Notice adequate because agenda and materials were accessible | Notice failed to comply with Government Code 11125(a) and CEQA notice rules | Notice insufficient; 10-day CEQA notice not met; invalidates reliance on exemption |
| Whether after-formed organizations can rely on others' CEQA objections | Subdivision (c) allows after-formed groups to rely on pre-existing objections | Requires its own members to raise objections directly | Subdivision (c) interpreted to allow reliance but exhaustion clause still applicable, with exception |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Lodi v. City of Lodi, 144 Cal.App.4th 865 (Cal. App. 2006) (exhaustion of CEQA remedies; public-comment requirements)
- Tomlinson v. County of Alameda, 54 Cal.4th 281 (Cal. 2012) (exhaustion doctrine; statutory prerequisites)
- Temecula Band of Luiseño Mission Indians v. Rancho California Water Dist., 43 Cal.App.4th 425 (Cal. App. 1996) (waiver of notice issue under CEQA have limits)
- McQueen v. Board of Directors, 202 Cal.App.3d 1136 (Cal. App. 1988) (notice accuracy affecting CEQA challenges; adequacy of notice)
- Burke v. California Coastal Com., 168 Cal.App.4th 1098 (Cal. App. 2008) (settlement/face of CEQA exemption; boundary settlements)
- County of Orange v. Heim, 30 Cal.App.3d 694 (Cal. App. 1973) (deferential review of agency actions; scope of review not universal)
- North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water Dist., 227 Cal.App.4th 832 (Cal. App. 2014) (statutory exemptions; de novo interpretation where necessary)