Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre
| Citation | 19 P.3d 567,105 Cal.Rptr.2d 214,25 Cal.4th 165 |
| Decision Date | 29 March 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. S085088.,S085088. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
| Parties | FRIENDS OF SIERRA MADRE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF SIERRA MADRE et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
Brandt Hawley & Zoia, Susan Brandt Hawley and Rose M. Zoia, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Richard M. Frank, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Rodriguez and Theodora Berger, Assistant Attorneys General, Timothy R. Patterson and Christine Ann Sproul, Deputy Attorneys General, for State of California ex rel. Attorney General Bill Lockyer, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Rosenthal & Zimmerman and Deborah M. Rosenthal for California Preservation Foundation, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Michael H. Buhler and Elizabeth S. Merritt for National Trust for Historic Preservation, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Antonio Rossmann and Roger B. Moore for Planning and Conservation League, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Stuart M. Flashman; Christopher Schlies; Howie, Long, LaForce & Smith and Norman LaForce for Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee, Inc ., and Citizens for Balanced Growth, Inc., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Attorneys for Respondent: Charles Martin, City Attorney; Landels, Ripley & Diamond, Janine K. Massey, Donald Sobelman, Edward J. Heisel; Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, Sanford Svetcov; Morrison & Foerster, Michael H. Zischke and Andrew B. Sabey, for Defendants and Appellants.
Louise H. Renne, City Attorney (San Francisco), Ellen Forman, Chief Deputy City Attorney, Kate H. Stacy and Susan S. Cleveland, Deputy City Attorneys; Richards, Watson & Gershon, Craig A. Steele (Agoura Hills); Carol A. Korade, City Attorney (Alameda); Robert Zweben, City Attorney (Albany); William Galstan, City Attorney (Antioch); Pamela Albers, City Attorney (Avalon); Robert M. Sherfy, Assistant City Attorney (Bakersfield); Michael G. Colantuono, City Attorney (Barstow and Monrovia); Terry B. Stevenson, Assistant City Attorney (Burbank); William S. Smerdon, City Attorney (Calipatria); Ronald R. Ball, City Attorney (Carlsbad); Kenneth A. Wilson, City Attorney (Clearlake, Cloverdale and Healdsburg); Mark T. Boehme, City Attorney (Concord); Harriet Steiner, City Attorney (Davis); Alan J. Peake, City Attorney (Delano and Wasco); Robert R. Wellington, City Attorney (Del Rey Oaks and Marina); Lynn R. McDougal, City Attorney (El Cajon and Imperial Beach); Brad L. Fuller, City Attorney (Eureka); Scott H. Howard, City Attorney (Glendale); John Truxaw, City Attorney (Half Moon Bay and Sonoma); Michael J. O'Toole, City Attorney (Hayward); Julie Biggs, City Attorney (Hemet); Elaine M. Cass, City Attorney (Hollister); Gail Hutton, City Attorney (Huntington Beach); Charles J. Williams, City Attorney (Lafayette); John Sanford Todd, City Attorney (Lakewood); Susan Burns Cochran, City Attorney (Lathrop); William W. Wynder, City Attorney (Lawndale); Randall A. Hays, City Attorney (Lodi); Sharon D. Stuart, City Attorney (Lompoc); Robert E. Shannon, City Attorney (Long Beach), Heather A. Mahood, Assistant City Attorney; Dave Larsen, Town Attorney (Loomis); Robert K. Booth, Jr., (Los Altos); Steven F. Nord, City Attorney (Merced); Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney (Milpitas and South San Francisco); William B. Conners, City Attorney (Monterey); Anthony Canzoneri, City Attorney (Monterey Park); Robert D. Herrick, City Attorney (Moreno Valley); Michael D. Martello, City Attorney (Mountain View); Thomas B. Brown, City Attorney (Napa); James R. Anderson, City Attorney (Nevada City); Gary T. Galliano, City Attorney (Newark and Union City); Duane E. Bennett (Oceanside); David A. De Berry, City Attorney (Orange); Gary L. Gillig, City Attorney (Oxnard); David J. Erwin, City Attorney (Palm Desert); George S. Peyton, Jr., City Attorney (Piedmont); Debra S. Margolis, City Attorney (Pleasant Hill); Michael H. Roush, City Attorney (Pleasanton); Michael F. Dean, City Attorney (Plymouth); Daniel J. McHugh, City Attorney (Redlands); Robert A. Owen, City Attorney (Rialto); Thomas H. Terpstra, City Attorney (Ripon); Betsy Strauss, City Attorney (Rohnert Park); Mark Doane, City Attorney (Roseville); Hadden Roth, City Attorney (Ross and San Anselmo); Samuel L. Jackson, City Attorney (Sacramento); James C. Sanchez, City Attorney (Salinas); Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney (San Bruno); Robert J. Lanzone, City Attorney (San Carlos); Casey Gwinn, City Attorney (San Diego), Leslie J. Girard, Assistant City Attorney; Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney (San Luis Obispo); Roy C. Abrams, City Attorney (San Mateo); Brian M. Libow, City Attorney (San Pablo); Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney (San Rafael); Daniel J. Wallace, City Attorney (Santa Barbara); Michael R. Downey, City Attorney (Santa Clara); Marsha Jones Moutric, City Attorney (Santa Monica); Phillip H. Romney, City Attorney (Santa Paula); Richard K. Denhalter, City Attorney (Stockton); Bradley W. Sullivan, City Attorney (Sutter Creek); Ann R. Danforth, City Attorney (Tiburon); Debra E. Corbett, City Attorney (Tracy); J. Dennis Crabb, City Attorney (Truckee); Scott Nichols, City Attorney (Walnut); and William E. Gnass, City Attorney (Waterford) for City and County of San Francisco, 86 California Cities and the California State Association of Counties, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants. Nicholas J. Cammarota for California Building Industry Association, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.
David C. Smith for Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.
Cassidy, Shimko & Dawson, Anna C. Shimko and Matthew D. Francois for California Building Industry Association, California Business Properties Association and Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.
This case presents an issue important to local governments and those interested in historic preservation: whether an initiative ballot measure, generated by a city council rather than by voter petition, submitting to the voters an ordinance that removes a structure or structures from historic preservation status is a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.).1 We conclude that CEQA compliance is required when a project is proposed and placed on the ballot by a public agency. In so doing we reject defendants' argument that the trial court and, by implication, the appellate court, should not consider plaintiffs' claim that the results of the election at which the ordinance in dispute was adopted must be set aside because their challenge is not one permitted by Elections Code section 16100.
The Court of Appeal rejected the argument of the City of Sierra Madre that a postelection challenge to a local ordinance may not be made on grounds other than those specified by statute, concluding that it was free to address the merits of a claim that the ballot measure in issue here, City of Sierra Madre Ordinance No. I-97-1 (Ordinance No. I-97-1), was invalid because the city had not complied with CEQA before placing the measure on the ballot as a city-council-generated initiative.
We conclude that the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the order granting a peremptory writ of mandate should be affirmed. Although CEQA noncompliance is not among statutory bases for an election contest (Elec.Code, § 16100) and those bases are exclusive if the claim is an election contest, mandate is a remedy authorized by CEQA to review and set aside a public agency action taken without CEQA compliance. Because we conclude that the discretionary submission of a ballot measure to the voters by a city council is not exempt from CEQA and the petition alleges, the record demonstrates, and the city acknowledges noncompliance, the invalidity of the ordinance was established. The trial court properly granted the petition for writ of mandate, albeit for the wrong reason. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
The City of Sierra Madre enacted an historic preservation ordinance in 1987.2 That ordinance created a Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC) with responsibility for identifying structures of historic or cultural merit and carrying out procedures to list on the city's Register of Historic Landmarks those structures worthy of preservation.3 The ordinance also created a regulatory scheme applicable to listed properties.4 The ordinance was repealed in July 1997 and replaced by a new ordinance (Sierra Madre Ord. No. 1134) adding chapters 2.28 and 17.82 to the Municipal Code. Under the newly adopted chapters 2.28 and 17.82 of the Sierra Madre Municipal Code, future landmark designation became voluntary.
The 1997 ordinance established procedures by which the owner of an already listed property may seek delisting by application to the CHC, which is then required to conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council. The city council then determines whether the request should be granted. Granting an application to delist is required "if the finding can be made that the information relied upon by the [CHC] or the city council in making the designation is discovered to be false or substantially erroneous thus rendering the property without historic merit." (Sierra Madre Mun.Code, § 17.82.080, subd. A.) An owner may also seek a certificate of economic hardship, issuance of which may lead to delisting. If the owner establishes that the economic hardship caused by designation is disproportionate to the value of the property under landmark designation, after a public hearing the commission, based on criteria set forth in the ordinance,5 recommends whether to grant or deny the application. The ordinance also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boling v. Pub. Emp't Relations Bd.
...rather than ministerial determination by the governing body. (See, e.g., Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal.4th 165, 187, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 214, 19 P.3d 567 (Friends of Sierra Madre ).) Because of the "clear distinction between voter-sponsored and city-council-gener......
-
Becerra v. Mcclatchy Co.
...§ 11347.3, subd. (b).) A rulemaking file is the proper subject of judicial notice (see Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal.4th 165, 188, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 214, 19 P.3d 567 ), and indeed ensures effective judicial review of contested regulations. ( POET, LLC v. State ......
-
League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer
...on the environment and the ways available to minimize that impact. ([ ] § 21061.)" ( Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal.4th 165, 184-185, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 214, 19 P.3d 567, fn. omitted.)The four primary components of an EIR are (1) the project description. This dis......
-
Costa v. Superior Court
...that may be tendered in post-election contests and the scope of review. (See § 16100; Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal.4th 165, 192, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 214, 19 P.3d 567.) Where a pre-ballot procedural claim does not implicate the validity of the ensuing election co......
-
Court Rules City Council Can't Skip CEQA By Adopting Voter Proposed Legislation
...use approvals such as general plan amendments, by initiative. Several years later, in Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre, 25 Cal. 4th 165 (2001),the court ruled that while a city council's ministerial action placing a citizen-sponsored measure on the ballot is exempt from CEQA,......
-
CHAPTER 14 A SURVEY OF STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACTS
...Rev. Code § 43.21C.031(1). [21] See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15378(b)(1). [22] See Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre, 25 Cal.4th 165 (2001). Likewise, an action that is proposed by a public agency but requires subsequent voter approval may also be subject to environmental re......
-
The Top Ten Real Property Cases of 2014
...v. Superior Court of Tuolumne Cnty. (Walmart Stores, Inc.), 59 Cal. 4th 1029 (2014).16. Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre, 25 Cal. 4th 165 (2001).17. Tuolumne Jobs & Small Bus. Alliance, 59 Cal. 4th at 1037.18. Friends of Sierra Madre, 25 Cal. 4th 165.19. Decon Grp., Inc. v. P......
-
Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15378 Project
...sponsored initiative. (Stein v. City of Santa Monica, (1980) 110 Cal. App. 3d 458; Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal.4th 165); (4) The creation of government mechanisms or other government fiscal activities, which do not involve any commitment to any specific pro......