Save Lafayette Trees v. East Bay Regional Park Dist.
A156150
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- In March 2017 EBRPD's Board approved Resolution No. 2017-03-065 and, on March 22–23, executed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with PG&E under which 245 trees near a gas transmission pipeline would be removed for safety and PG&E would provide funding and limited replacement/maintenance.
- EBRPD filed a CEQA Notice of Exemption in June 2017, citing exemptions for work on existing pipelines and minor land alterations.
- Plaintiffs Save Lafayette Trees and individual members sued (first petition filed Sept. 29, 2017) alleging: (1) CEQA violations for failing to analyze tree removals, (2) violations of Lafayette Tree Protection Ordinance and EBRPD Ordinance 38, and (3) deprivation of due process for lack of notice/hearing.
- Plaintiffs and EBRPD had a 60-day tolling agreement before suit; PG&E did not consent to tolling and was personally served after the suit was filed.
- The trial court sustained demurrers without leave to amend: CEQA claim dismissed as time-barred (180-day limit); the ordinance claims failed as a matter of law (preemption and inapplicability); due-process claim rejected as the Board’s actions were quasi-legislative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Timeliness of CEQA challenge / validity of tolling agreement | Tolling agreement with EBRPD made filing timely; alternatively, plaintiffs lacked constructive notice so 180-day period had not begun | Tolling ineffective as PG&E (real party in interest) did not consent; 180-day limitations began March 21, 2017 and suit was late | CEQA cause of action barred by 180-day statute; tolling agreement did not bind PG&E; dismissal affirmed |
| 2. Applicability of Lafayette Tree Protection Ordinance to EBRPD lands | Lafayette ordinance controls removal of protected trees on district land within city limits | State law (§§5541/5541.1) grants EBRPD broad exclusive authority to manage district lands and preempts local tree regulation | City ordinance is preempted as to EBRPD’s management decisions; demurrer sustained |
| 3. Applicability of EBRPD Ordinance 38 to Board actions | Ordinance 38 applies to any "person," including the District/Board, so Board violated its own ordinance | Ordinance 38 governs public use on parkland and expressly excludes district employees; it was not intended to constrain Board policymaking | Ordinance 38 does not apply to the Board’s legislative/management actions; demurrer sustained |
| 4. Due process (notice & hearing) | Board’s approval was adjudicative with individualized effects on property rights, triggering Horn/Scott notice/hearing protections | Board’s decision was quasi-legislative — a policy decision balancing broad public interests — so constitutional notice/hearing requirements do not apply | Board action was quasi-legislative; no procedural due-process claim lies; demurrer sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors, 48 Cal.4th 32 (Cal. 2010) (180-day CEQA limitations period runs from the agency decision; constructive notice doctrine)
- Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, 48 Cal.4th 481 (Cal. 2010) (flaws in approval procedure do not delay the running of CEQA limitations when notice of approval was given)
- Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin, 205 Cal.App.4th 195 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (tolling agreements under CEQA require concurrence of project proponent/real party in interest to be effective)
- Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz, 38 Cal.4th 1139 (Cal. 2006) (principles and presumptions governing state preemption of local ordinances)
- San Diego Bldg. Contractors Assn. v. City Council, 13 Cal.3d 205 (Cal. 1974) (quasi-legislative acts are not subject to constitutional notice-and-hearing requirements applicable to adjudicative decisions)
- Horn v. County of Ventura, 24 Cal.3d 605 (Cal. 1979) (adjudicatory/quasi-adjudicatory land-use decisions require notice and hearing)
- Oceanside Marina Towers Assn. v. Oceanside Community Development Com., 187 Cal.App.3d 735 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (decisions about public improvements and redevelopment involve broad community interests and are quasi-legislative)