No Wetlands Landfill Expansion v. County of Marin
204 Cal. App. 4th 573
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Marin EHS, designated local enforcement agency under the Waste Act, issued the SWF permit for Redwood Landfill after CEQA review; Marin EHS acted as lead agency for CEQA.
- Marin County Planning Commission reviewed the EIR and recommended certification to Marin EHS; Marin EHS ultimately certified the EIR.
- NWLE, SPRWLDF, and NCRA sought to appeal Marin EHS’s EIR certification to the Marin County Board of Supervisors in 2008.
- County counsel advised Marin EHS acted as CalRecycle’s designated representative, not Marin County, so no Board appeal was available; underlying SWF permit action proceeded.
- CalRecycle concurred in the SWF permit issuance in December 2008; plaintiffs withdrew their administrative appeal petition; in 2010 they filed a petition for writ of mandate in superior court challenging CEQA violation (appeal eligibility) and the court granted relief on the appeal issue.
- The trial court’s ruling directing an administrative appeal to the Board of Supervisors was later reversed; the court remanded remaining CEQA claims for resolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EHS’s EIR certification is appealable to the Board | NWLE contends Board is the elected decisionmaker for Marin EHS’s certification | Marin EHS is the lead agency with no elected decisionmaking body; Board lacks authority | No, not appealable to Board; no elected decisionmaker on EIR certification by EHS |
| Role of Waste Act vs. CEQA in appeal rights | Waste Act structure should allow Board review of EIR certification | Lead agency EHS, distinct from county, governs CEQA; Board has no appellate role | Board has no appellate authority over EIR certification under Waste Act/CEQA framework |
| Lead agency vs. planning commission in CEQA process | Planning Commission involvement implies potential appeal to Board | Planning Commission advisory; EHS decisions are nonappealable to Board | Lead agency for CEQA is Marin EHS; Board cannot review its EIR certification |
| Impact of local guidelines on CEQA appeals | Local guidelines require Board review of CEQA determinations | Guidelines do not override statutory structure; not applicable here | Guidelines do not compel Board review of Marin EHS’s EIR certification |
| Remedy for EIR adequacy claims beyond appealability | EIR adequacy challenges should proceed in court | Remedy lies in superior court review of EIR adequacy | EIR adequacy claims remain for court review; not resolved on the appealability issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Vedanta Society of Southern California v. California Quartet, Ltd., 84 Cal.App.4th 517 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd Div. 2000) (appealability of unelected board when certifying EIR depends on context)
- California Oak Foundation v. Regents of University of California, 188 Cal.App.4th 227 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2010) (defines decisionmaking body and nondelegable CEQA tasks)
- Sea & Sage Audubon Society v. Planning Commission, 34 Cal.3d 412 (Cal. 1983) (appeal or exhaustion requirements for CEQA challenges)
- Sustainability, Parks, Recycling & Wildlife Legal Defense Fund v. County of Solano Dept. of Resource Management, 167 Cal.App.4th 1350 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2008) (CEQA administrative review and local hearing procedures)
- Sierra Club v. San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission, 21 Cal.4th 489 (Cal. 1999) (right to judicial review of final agency decision; exhaustion considerations)