Van De Kamps Coal. v. Bd. of Trs. of L.A. Cmty. Coll. Dist.

• Decision Date: 08 May 2012
• Docket Number: No. B234955.,B234955.
• Citation: 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 276,12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6200,280 Ed. Law Rep. 338,2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7451,206 Cal.App.4th 1036
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: VAN DE KAMPS COALITION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT et al., Respondents; City of Los Angeles et al., Real Parties in Interest.

206 Cal.App.4th 1036

142 Cal.Rptr.3d 276

280 Ed. Law Rep. 338

12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6200

2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7451

VAN DE KAMPS COALITION, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT et al., Respondents;City of Los Angeles et al., Real Parties in Interest.

No. B234955.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

May 8, 2012.

The Law Office of Daniel Wright and Daniel E. Wright for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden, Riverside, John C. Nolan, Jennifer M. Guenther and Stefanie G. Field for Respondents.

DOI TODD, J.

Plaintiff and appellant Van de Kamps Coalition filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief against respondents the Board of Trustees of Los Angeles Community College District (Board) and the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD), alleging that the Board and the LACCD failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (CEQA) in connection with the leasing of a campus site. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend on the ground that the action was time-barred.

We affirm. The decisions made in 2010 that appellant challenged in the petition and complaint were actions toward the implementation of a 2009 project approval and did not trigger the running of a new limitations period under Public Resources Code section 21167, subdivision (d).

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On appeal from a judgment of dismissal following a demurrer sustained without leave to amend, we assume the truth of all well-pleaded facts, as well as those that are judicially noticeable, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. ( Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of La Habra (2001) 25 Cal.4th 809, 814, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 369, 23 P.3d 601;Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58.)

The First CEQA Action.

Appellant is an unincorporated association whose members first came together to save the historic Van de Kamps Bakery Building (Building or site) when a real estate developer proposed to demolish it and build a Home Base store. After the City of Los Angeles (City) prepared and certified an environmental impact report (EIR) for the project, the City Planning Commission denied approval. Appellant supported the LACCD's acquisition of the site for the development of a satellite campus for Los Angeles City College. The LACCD completed the purchase of the two-acre site in 2001 through the issuance of Proposition 39 bonds.

During the next several years, the LACCD worked toward the construction and opening of a $72 million community college campus, comprised of the rehabilitated Building used for art studios and other classrooms and a new education building housing classrooms and a library. An EIR update and two addenda were prepared to analyze the environmental impacts of a satellite community college campus. Due to the state budget crisis, the LACCD realized by 2008 that it would be financially unable to operate the facility as a full satellite campus. But it recognized that there were a number of existing education and service providers that had the ability to operate on the site and present a comprehensive program of classes and training that could meet the community's educational needs. In order to use the site for educational purposes, on July 15, 2009 the Board adopted resolutions which approved an interim use of the property and authorized a five-year lease of part of the Building to an outside tenant (Resolutions).

By way of the Resolutions, the Board determined, found and ordered that for a period of five years Los Angeles City College would have no programmatic or administrative responsibility for the operation of the facilities that had been constructed at the site; effective immediately, for a period of five years the LACCD would assume those responsibilities; the complex at the site would be renamed the Los Angeles Community College District Van de Kamp Innovation Center; and “[t]he District Office shall make the LACCD Van de Kamp Innovation Center space available on a rental basis to a variety of service and educational entities to meet the needs of the community and fully cover the costs of operation and maintenance on a day-to-day basis, subject to approval by the Board of Trustees.” At the same time, the Board authorized a five-year lease agreement with the Alliance for College–Ready Public Schools (Alliance) at the site. At the Board meeting the LACCD indicated that additional environmental review for the lease was unnecessary because the site would have the same functionality that was originally planned and reviewed in the EIR update and addenda.

Also in 2009, the Board took certain actions in furtherance of the Resolutions. On November 4, 2009 the Board approved a $400,000 expenditure to Quatro Design Group for the purpose of redesigning the Building to meet the needs of the proposed new tenants. Further, on December 16, 2009 the Board approved the purchase of a neighboring property from the Portola Group (Portola Purchase Agreement); LACCD staff reported that the land was not for any particular project and the LACCD had no “ ‘current plans' to develop the land....”

On January 11, 2010, appellant filed a petition for writ of mandate (CEQA I) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against LACCD and others, challenging the adequacy of CEQA review for the July 15, November 4 and December 16, 2009 project approvals. Appellant alleged: “The actions on July 15, 2009 and November 4, 2009 were taken without any effort by the LACCD or its Board of Trustees to assess the potential significant environmental impact of the major changes being made to the land uses at the VdK Campus. For the action on December 16, 2009, contrary to substantial evidence in the record, the Board of Trustees adopted a resolution falsely claiming that the purchase of the land was ‘exempt from CEQA’ because the LACCD has ‘no current plans' for the land.”

The Instant CEQA Action.

Following the filing of CEQA I, the LACCD undertook additional actions in furtherance of the Resolutions. On May 26, 2010, the Board approved a lease with the City for a portion of the Building to be used for employment retraining. In July 2010 and again in October 2010, some of appellant's members as individuals filed separate taxpayer petitions under Proposition 39 challenging the same actions alleged in CEQA I. (See Jackson et al. v. Los Angeles Community College District et al. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Case No. BS127587); Folsom et al. v. Los Angeles Community College District et al. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Case No. BS128994).) ¹ On August 25 and October 6, 2010, the Board approved a first and second amendment, respectively, to the Portola Purchase Agreement which added indemnification provisions related to the filing of CEQA I and the taxpayer actions. Finally, on November 3, 2010 the Board approved an amendment to the contract with Quatro Design Group for additional architectural services to meet the needs of new tenants.

The trial court denied appellant's motion for leave to file a second amended petition in CEQA I to include claims based on the LACCD's actions undertaken in 2010, which appellant claimed it discovered during the preparation of the administrative record. On November 19, 2010, appellant filed a second petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief (CEQA II), and filed the operative first amended petition and complaint in February 2011.² Appellant characterized CEQA II as a “companion” to CEQA I and filed a notice of related cases for all four actions. Appellant alleged that the discretionary decisions made in 2009 were the subject of CEQA I and challenged the 2010 decisions as being null and void because of the LACCD's failure to undertake the requisite environmental review.

Demurrer and Judgment.

Initially, the trial court sustained with leave to amend the unopposed demurrer filed by the LACCD and the Board.³ The LACCD thereafter demurred to the operative CEQA II petition on the grounds it was time-barred and duplicative, and failed to state a claim. It argued that the limitations period for a CEQA claim was triggered by the Resolutions, not by subsequent actions taken as a result and in furtherance of the Resolutions. In support of the demurrer the LACCD sought judicial notice of pleadings and motions in other cases, Board resolutions and minutes, and correspondence from public officials.

Appellant opposed the demurrer, arguing that the LACCD did not commit itself to a particular course of action until the later approvals in 2010. It also objected to judicial notice of correspondence.⁴ Before the demurrer was heard, it also moved to consolidate CEQA I and CEQA II, and the LACCD opposed the motion.

The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, ruling that “the 180–day limitations period began to run with the approval by the board of the leasing of the campus to non-community college activities and not with the execution of the lease with the City of Los Angeles. Although the July 15, 2009 resolutions stated that the execution of any lease would be subject to the board's approval, such reservation and subsequent approval do not constitute a substantial change in the project as is necessary to trigger a new 180–day limitations period.” The trial court specifically rejected appellant's multiple arguments that subsequent project decisions triggered a new limitations period, ruling that “[b]ecause the May 26, 2010, August 25, 2010, October 6, 2010 and November 3, 2010 decisions each relate back and are part of the decisions made on July 15, 2009, December 15, 2009 and November 4, 2009, respectively, the actions based on the 2010 decisions are barred by the statute of limitations. Moreover, because each of the 2009 decisions is the subject of litigation in...