Friends of the Juana Briones House v. City of Palo Alto
190 Cal. App. 4th 286
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- This case concerns CEQA applicability to a demolition permit for the Juana Briones House in Palo Alto.
- Appellants sought a demolition permit; the City previously denied and litigation ensued, culminating in a prior writ and Mills Act dispute.
- PAMC § 16.49.070 governs demolition of certain historic buildings outside downtown, including moratoriums, referrals, and potential delays.
- The 2007 director’s hearing and a March 7, 2007 decision conditioned the demolition permit but maintained it as ministerial in nature; the City issued the permit on April 10, 2007.
- Respondent (an Association) challenged CEQA compliance in 2007-2008, leading to a trial court judgment that the permit was discretionary and subject to CEQA, which this court reverses.
- The appellate court holds CEQA does not apply because the permit approval is ministerial, and there were no actionable procedural violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the demolition permit ministerial or discretionary? | Nulman argues ministerial nature under PAMC § 16.49.070. | Friends contends discretionary elements exist due to moratorium and Board involvement. | Demolition permit is ministerial; CEQA does not apply. |
| Do the director’s conditions convert the permit into a discretionary act? | Conditions could render approval discretionary. | Conditions were voluntary and do not convert the act to discretionary. | Conditions were voluntary and do not render the permit discretionary. |
| Does the possibility of a subsequent building permit affect CEQA review of the demolition permit? | Building permit could create a larger CEQA project. | The future building permit is not guaranteed and not necessarily part of the same CEQA project. | No single CEQA project was created by segmentation; demolition remains ministerial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 191 Cal.App.3d 259 (Cal.App.3d 1987) (distinguishes ministerial vs discretionary projects and functional test)
- Prentiss v. City of South Pasadena, 15 Cal.App.4th 85 (Cal.App.4th 1993) (defines ministerial vs discretionary in building permits)
- Court House Plaza Co. v. City of Palo Alto, 117 Cal.App.3d 871 (Cal.App.3d 1981) (ministerial nature of building permit issuance when standards met)
- Leach v. City of San Diego, 220 Cal.App.3d 389 (Cal.App.3d 1990) (timing/decision scope can be ministerial despite some discretion)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal.3d 1988) (limits CEQA review unless reasonably foreseeable significant impacts)
- Health First v. March Joint Powers Authority, 174 Cal.App.4th 1135 (Cal.App.4th 2009) (CEQA applicability as a legal question reviewed de novo)