Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth

• Decision Date: 21 July 2000
• Citation: 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 334,82 Cal.App.4th 511
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 2000) FRIENDS OF MAMMOTH et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY et al., Defendants and Respondents, MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN SKI AREA et al., Interveners and Respondents. C029659, C031043 (Mono) Filed

98 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 2000)

FRIENDS OF MAMMOTH et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY et al Defendants and Respondents, MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN SKI AREA et al., Interveners and Respondents.

C029659, C031043

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE

DISTRICT, (Mono)

Filed 7/21/00

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mono County. N. Edward Denton, Judge. Reversed.

(Super. Ct. No. 12308)(Super. Ct. No. 12334)

Kane, Ballmer & Berkman, Murray O. Kane, R. Bruce Tepper, Jr., Stephanie R. Scher for Plaintiffs and Appellants on Nos. C029659 and C031043.

McDonough, Holland & Allen and T. Brent Hawkins for the Counties of Del Norte, Humboldt, Kern, Lassen, Los Angeles, Madera, Merced, Nevada, Riverside, San Benito, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Tulare, and Yolo, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants in No. C031043.

Peter E. Tracy, Town Attorney; Stephen M. Place; Sabo & Green, Charles R. Green, James C. Fedalen and William P. Medlen for Defendants and Respondents in Nos. C029659 and C031043.

Landels, Ripley & Diamond, Michael H. Zischke, Ted Stevens for the Cities of Albany, Bishop, Garden Grove, Hayward, Piedmont, San Juan Capistrano, Sierra Madre, and Temple City; Carol A. Korade for City of Alameda; Sonia R. Carvalho for Cities of Azusa and Claremont; Bart J. Thiltgen for City of Bakersfield; Richard M. Manning for City of Capitola; Ronald R. Ball for City of Carlsbad; Michael G. Colantuono for City of Cudahy; Alan J. Peake for City of Delano; Michael Jenkins for the Cities of Diamond Bar and West Hollywood; Brad L. Fuller for City of Eureka; Harvey E. Levine for City of Fremont; Linda A. Callon for City of Gilroy; John R. Harper for City of Grand Terrace; Francis R. Ruggieri for City of Gustine; David R. McEwen for City of Lancaster; Charles J. Williams for City of Lafayette; Thomas R. Curry for City of Livermore; Randall A. Hays for City of Lodi; Robert E. Shannon for City of Long Beach; Joseph A. Soldani for City of Madera; Steven F. Nord for City of Merced; Anthony Canzoneri for City of Monterey Park; Robert D. Herrick for City of Moreno Valley; William B. Conners for City of Monterey; Michael D. Martello for City of Mountain View; John R. Harper for the Cities of Murrieta and Norco; Jayne W. Williams for City of Oakland; David J. Erwin for City of Palm Desert; Scott Nichols for the Cities of Pico Rivera and Walnut; Carol B. Tanenbaum for City of Placentia; Stephen M. Ecais for City of Poway; W. Leonard Wingate for City of Redding; Daniel J. McHugh for City of Redlands; Robert A. Owen for City of Rialto; Hadden Roth for Town of Ross and City of San Anselmo; Robert J. Lanzone for City of San Carlos; Brian M. Libow for City of San Pablo; Phillip H. Bomney for City of Santa Paula; Rene A. Chouteau for City of Santa Rosa; Scott S. Smith for City of Santee; Valerie J. Armento for City of Sunnyvale; Ann R. Danforth for Town of Tiburon; Debra E. Corbet for City of Tracy; Charles O. Lamoree for City of Vacaville; Henry R. Kraft for City of Victorville; Larry G. Bacon for City of Yreka; Naomi Silvergleid for Town of Yucca Valley; as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents in No. C029659.

Rollston, Henderson, Rasmussen & Crabb, J. Dennis Crabb for Town of Truckee; Michael Jenkins, Richards, Watson & Gershon, T. Peter Pierce, Steven R. Orr, for the Cities of Alameda, Albany, Avalon, Bakersfield, Bishop, Carson, Cerritos, Delano, Diamond Bar, Dinuba, Hollister, Huron, Long Beach, Los Altos, Monterey Park, Mountain View, Oceanside, Orange Cove, Pico Rivera, Piedmont, Ripon, Ross, San Anselmo, San Bruno, San Buenaventura, Seaside, Walnut, and Wasco, the Barstow Redevelopment Agency, and the Bishop Redevelopment Agency; as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents in No. C031043.

David S. Baumwohl for Interveners and Respondents, Mammoth Mountain Ski Area and Mammoth Mountain Land Corporation in Nos. C029659 and C031043.

Liebersbach, Mohun, Carney & Reed, R. Mark Carney and James S. Reed for Interveners and Respondents, Intrawest Mammoth Corporation in Nos. C029659 and C031043.

NICHOLSON, J.

In this consolidated appeal, we address challenges to a redevelopment plan adopted by the Town of Mammoth Lakes and the environmental analysis performed on that plan. The trial court determined both the environmental analysis and the redevelopment plan complied with governing law. We disagree, and reverse both the trial court's judgment upholding the environmental analysis and the trial court's judgment on the validity of the redevelopment plan. Our decision also nullifies the trial court's denial of motions to tax costs in the two actions below.

FACTS

In March of 1996, defendants Town of Mammoth Lakes and Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency ("Agency"; collectively, the "Town") began the process established by the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, 33000 et seq.) to adopt a redevelopment plan. Part of this process included the preparation of an environmental impact report ("EIR") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, 21000 et seq.).

On June 18, 1997, both the Agency's governing Board of Directors and the Town Council certified the EIR. The Agency also approved the proposed redevelopment plan and its accompanying report (the "Final Report") and forwarded the documents to the Town Council. On July 2, 1997, the Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 97-08 approving the redevelopment plan.

The redevelopment plan applied to a project area consisting of three areas of land totaling over 1,100 acres: A main area of about 907 acres; Subarea 1 consisting of a 30-acre industrial park; and Subarea 2 consisting of the approximately 200-acre airport (collectively, the "Project Area"). Subareas 1 and 2 were not contiguous to the main area or to each other.

The main area contains the Town's traditional downtown commercial area as well as approximately 1,200 units of housing, about half of which are condominiums. It also encompasses a site designated for development of a community college and portions of three partially developed recreational resort areas: Lodestar at Mammoth, Juniper Ridge and North Village. The college site, the resort areas and the airport were the subjects of significant proposed development and corresponding environmental review approved before the redevelopment plan was adopted. Most of that proposed development had not occurred, however, by the time the Town adopted the redevelopment plan.

Plaintiffs Friends of Mammoth, Andrea M. Lawrence, Patricia Savage and Pat Eckart (collectively "plaintiffs") filed two actions challenging the Town's adoption of the redevelopment plan. The first (C029659 on appeal) was a petition for writ of mandate against the Agency and the Town claiming the redevelopment plan EIR failed to comply with the requirements of CEQA. The second (C031043 on appeal) was a validation action under Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq. against the Town, the Agency, and all persons interested in the adoption of the redevelopment plan, claiming the redevelopment plan did not comply with the requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law.

By judgment dated May 5, 1998, the trial court denied the CEQA mandate petition and awarded costs to the Town. By judgment dated October 21, 1998, the trial court also determined the redevelopment plan was valid, ordered plaintiffs take nothing by their complaint, and awarded costs to the Town. Plaintiffs filed motions to tax costs in each case, both of which were denied in full by the trial court. Plaintiffs timely appealed each judgment. We consolidated the appeals on plaintiffs' motion.¹ We will provide additional facts as

required.²

CEQA APPEAL (C029659)

I Standard of Review

We review the Town's decision certifying the redevelopment plan EIR to determine "whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence." (Pub. Resources Code, 21168.5; see also Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 567-568.)

"On appeal, our task is the same as the trial court's, 'that is, to review the agency's actions to determine whether the agency complied with the procedures required by law.' [Citation.] The trial court's conclusions are not binding on us." (Davidon Holmes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 106, 113-114.) Nevertheless, the EIR is presumed adequate, and plaintiffs bear the burden of proving otherwise. (Pub. Resources Code, 21167.3; State of California v. Superior Court (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1416, 1419.)

II Adequacy of EIR's Analysis of Proposed Redevelopment Projects

Plaintiffs claim the EIR violated CEQA, and particularly Public Resources Code section 21090, by failing to analyze the indirect or secondary environmental impacts likely to be caused by each of the proposed redevelopment projects included in the redevelopment plan. For the reasons which follow, we agree.

If a redevelopment agency desires to use its funds to purchase land or to construct public buildings, facilities or other improvements which will assist in eliminating blight, Health and Safety Code section 33445 requires the redevelopment agency to provide for the "acquisition of property and installation or construction of each facility" in the redevelopment plan. (Health & Saf. Code, 33445, subd. (b), emphasis added.) The redevelopment agency must also list in its Final Report the "specific projects then proposed by the agency" to eliminate blight. (Health & Saf. Code, 33352, subd. (a).)

Complying with these requirements, the Town's redevelopment plan "specifically authorized" the Agency "to provide or participate in providing" at least 72 separate and identified public improvements and...