Tahoe Vista Concerned Citizens v. County

• Decision Date: 13 June 2000
• Docket Number: No. C032876.,C032876.
• Citation: 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 880,81 Cal.App.4th 577
• Parties: TAHOE VISTA CONCERNED CITIZENS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF PLACER et al., Defendants and Respondents, Michael Rafton et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

96 Cal.Rptr.2d 880

81 Cal.App.4th 577

TAHOE VISTA CONCERNED CITIZENS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF PLACER et al., Defendants and Respondents, Michael Rafton et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

No. C032876.

Court of Appeal, Third District.

June 13, 2000.

Certified for Partial Publication.^*

Brandt-Hawley & Zoia and Rose M. Zoia, Glen Ellen, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Joseph McInerney, Chicago, IL, and Scott H. Finley, Auburn, Placer County Counsel's Office for Defendants and Respondents.

Feldman, Shaw & DeVore, Lewis S. Feldman and Michael J. McLaughlin, South Lake Tahoe, for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

NICHOLSON, J.

Plaintiffs challenged the issuance of a conditional use permit, claiming the permit had not undergone sufficient environmental review and violated governing parking regulations. The trial court granted summary judgment against plaintiffs, finding they had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies on the environmental issue and the permit complied with the parking regulations. We affirm.

UNDISPUTED FACTS

On or about December 15, 1997, real parties in interest (real parties) applied to defendant County of Placer ("County") for a conditional use permit to redevelop a portion of their Vista Shores Resort. The resort is located on two adjacent parcels divided by state Highway 28 in an unincorporated area known as Tahoe Vista.

One parcel fronts on Lake Tahoe (the "lakefront parcel"). The lakefront parcel contains eight motel units. The other parcel located immediately cross Highway 28 (the "mountainside parcel") contains 22 motel units, a restaurant, an office, and employee housing quarters.

Under the permit, real parties would demolish the eight units on the lakefront parcel, and replace them with 22 units in four two-story buildings. Of the 22 units, two would have three bedrooms, 16 would have two bedrooms, and four would contain one bedroom. Each unit would also have a living room. The new resort would also have one full-time employee and three part-time employees.

Project plans depict a typical three-bedroom unit sleeping as many as nine people, not counting any who may sleep in the living room. The plans depict a two-bedroom unit accommodating as many as six people, and a one-bedroom unit accommodating two people, again not counting any others who may sleep in the living rooms.

The County assigned different file numbers to each approval or review required from the County for the project. The staff designated the conditional use permit application as file number CUP-2274, and designated the environmental review required for the use permit application as file number EIAQ-3354. EIAQ refers to an "Environmental Impact Assessment Questionnaire [that] is used as an initial study to evaluate potential impacts and mitigation measures of a specific project."

The North Tahoe Community Plan, promulgated jointly by the County and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency ("TRPA"), required development projects to provide a minimum amount of on-site automobile parking spaces as set forth in a parking demand table (the "Parking Demand Table"). The Parking Demand Table required the proposed project to provide one parking space for each full-time administrative employee, one space for every two other full-time employees, one space for every three part-time employees, and, of most importance here, one space for each "guest room or unit."

Real parties stated the project would require one full-time employee and three part-time employees. County staff thus determined the Parking Demand Table required the project to provide 24 on-site parking spaces: one for each of the 22 "units," one for the one full-time employee and one for the three part-time employees. The proposed project included 26 on-site parking spaces, exceeding by two the minimum number County staff claimed the Parking Demand Table required.

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)¹, County staff determined the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment if developed and operated subject to certain conditions and mitigation measures. Staff thus proposed the project be approved pursuant to a negative declaration instead of an environmental impact report ("EIR"). The proposed negative declaration was released for public review and comment on April 3,1998.

During the public comment period, a planning consultant, Basin Strategies, and an attorney who both represented plaintiffs and neighboring property owners Larry Kramer and Sharon Kramer (collectively the "Kramers") submitted letters to the County asserting the proposed project created significant environmental impacts requiring the County to review the project by means of an EIR.

On June 25, 1998, the County Planning Commission (Planning Commission) convened a public hearing on the permit application. The letters just mentioned seeking preparation of an EIR were included in the staff report to the Planning Commission. The Kramers and their attorney appeared at the hearing and voiced their opposition, claiming the project provided inadequate parking. Nonetheless, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the negative declaration and approved issuing the conditional use permit. The Planning Commission subsequently filed a notice of determination as required by CEQA on July 2, 1998, and issued conditions of approval in August 1998.

Following the conclusion of the Planning Commission's hearing, the Kramers immediately appealed the Planning Commission's action to the defendant County Board of Supervisors (Board of Supervisors) pursuant to County Code section 25.140.² They lodged their appeal by means of a form furnished by the County. The form lists different types of approvals of applications which could be appealed, including applications for environmental review, and asks the appellant to cheek all those that apply. The Kramers specified they were appealing the application for Use Permit # CUP-2274. They did not specify they were appealing from any application for environmental review. (The form allowed the appellant to indicate an appeal from "Env. Review EIAQ____".) The Kramers stated their reason for the appeal was "not enough parking."

The hearing on the appeal was scheduled for August 11, 1998. Public notice of the hearing listed the appeal's subject as "Planning/Negative Declaration (EIAQ-3354) Conditional Use Permit—Vista Shores Resort." The Board of Supervisors' agenda listed the appeal in the same fashion.

The staff report prepared for the Board of Supervisors included a copy of the negative declaration and the Planning Commission's findings approving the negative declaration, and stated the Planning Commission determined the negative declaration was adequate. The staff report noted the appeal was an appeal "of the Planning Commission's action to approve a Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit .... The reason for the appeal was cited as insufficient parking on the site."

The staff report also stated that during the comment period on the negative declaration, letters were received from representatives of the Kramers relating to the adequacy of the negative declaration and other matters. However, the report continued, "[w]hile the above issues were discussed at the June 25, 1998 Planning Commission hearing, it appears that the only issue that now remains, as indicated in the appeal filed on June 25, 1998, is the plaintiffs' concern that there is inadequate parking for the proposed use." The staff report did not include the letters from the Kramers' representatives that had been presented to the Planning Commission.

The staff report also explained how County staff applied the Parking Demand Table to this project: "The Parking Demand Table for the North Tahoe Community Plans indicates a parking requirement of one space per guest room or unit. Based on this standard, the required parking for this project is 24 spaces with parking for employees. A total of 26 parking spaces are proposed by the developer [on the lakefront parcel]. As indicated, the applicant proposed 22 units or 38 bedrooms. [The project actually contains 42 bedrooms.] Both Placer County [planning department] and TRPA required one parking space per unit instead of one per guest room. It is the [staffs] position that this standard is appropriate for this development. In addition, the developer has indicated that overflow parking for this project is available across Highway 28 on [the mountainside parcel].... If the Board [of Supervisors] chooses a condition can be imposed requiring an appropriate deed restriction which documents the relationship of the two parcels."³

The staff report recommended the Board of Supervisors uphold the Planning Commission's action by denying the appeal and adopting new findings. The two proposed new findings relevant here read: [1] "The Negative Declaration (EIAQ#-3354) prepared for Vista Shores Resort has been considered prior to approval of the project. It is determined to be adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for this project and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA"; and [2] "The proposed parking for the project is consistent with the Parking Demand Table for the North Tahoe Community Plans."

At the appeal hearing, planning staff opened its presentation by noting: "The [plaintiffs] in this case have only appealed the parking issue at this time. So there [were] some other issues that—during the Planning Commission hearing that did come up. The [plaintiffs], however, seem to be satisfied with that and have only appealed the parking issue."

No one who either testified orally at the appeal hearing or submitted written comments for that hearing questioned whether the County should have reviewed the project's environmental impacts by means of an EIR instead of a negative declaration. Except for one instance, all...