232 Cal. App. 4th 429
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- CEQA challenge by Ventura Foothill Neighbors against Ventura County over a 90-foot clinic built at a relocated site, where the 1993 EIR analyzed a 75-foot height.
- Relocation of the clinic occurred in 2005; the NOD and addendum discussed relocation but omitted height changes.
- In 2007 the plans increased height to 90 feet; in May 2008 residents learned of the height increase.
- County relied on an EIR addendum, not a supplemental EIR, to address the relocation and height change.
- Trial court held the height increase was a material change requiring major revisions and a supplemental EIR; granted mandamus.
- Appellate court affirms, holding the addendum was improper and the 30-day limitations period did not apply; 180-day period applicable for late height-change challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an EIR addendum suffices for a height increase to 90 feet | Ventura Foothill argues height increase required a supplemental EIR. | County contends relocation addendum addressed relocation only and no new height issues. | Addendum inadequate; height change required supplemental EIR. |
| Whether the 30-day CEQA limitations period applies | Respondent argues limitations runs 30 days from NOD. | County argues no notice of height change, so 30 days not triggered. | 30-day period inapplicable; 180-day period applicable from disclosure of height. |
| Whether the decision to use an addendum instead of a supplemental EIR was an abuse of discretion | Addendum failed to address increased height and substantial changes. | Addendum status supported by Guidelines for minor changes. | County abused discretion; required supplemental EIR for height. |
Key Cases Cited
- Committee For Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors, 48 Cal.4th 32 (Cal. 2010) (requires major revision for substantial changes in EIRs)
- Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn., 42 Cal.3d 929 (Cal. 1986) (180-day deadline for substantial changes not identified by EIR)
- Boyle v. CertainTeed Corp., 137 Cal.App.4th 645 (Cal. App. 2006) (judgment is presumed correct; burden on appellants)
- Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee, 210 Cal.App.4th 260 (Cal. App. 2012) (standard of review in CEQA/mandamus cases)