Source: https://caselaw.lexroll.com/2019/01/28/mccorkle-eastside-neighborhood-group-v-city-of-st-helena-no-a153238-cal-app-1-25-2019/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:44:34+00:00

Document:
Real party in interest Joe McGrath purchased the half-acre lot at 632 McCorkle Avenue, an area within the City’s HR district, intending to build multi-family dwellings on the property.
*Before Jones P.J., and Needham, J.
Appellants McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group and St. Helena Residents for an Equitable General Plan opposed the development of an eight-unit multifamily residential building at 632 McCorkle Avenue. They filed a lawsuit challenging the actions of respondents the City of St. Helena (City) and the City Council of St. Helena (City Council) in approving a resolution granting demolition and design review permits to property owner and real party in interest Joe McGrath. When the trial court denied their petition for peremptory and administrative writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1085, 1094.5), appellants filed this appeal. Appellants contend (1) the City violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Govt. Code, § 21000 et seq.) because the City Council failed to consider aspects of the project other than design review; and (2) the City abused its discretion under CEQA by approving the demolition permit and design review without requiring an environmental impact report (EIR) based on its determination that the proposed project met the requirements for a Class 32 (infill) categorical exemption under 14 California Administrative Code section 15332 (CEQA Guidelines). We affirm.
In 2015, the City began the process for amending the housing element of its general plan to conform with state policies by committing to eliminate the conditional use permit requirement for multi-family dwellings within High Density Residential (HR) districts. In 2016, the City amended its zoning ordinance to comply with this commitment. Section 17.44.020(C) of the St. Helena Municipal Code makes “[m]ultiple-family dwellings, apartments and dwelling groups consistent with the density requirements of this chapter” a permitted use within the HR district. Section 17.44.030 provides a list of uses requiring use permits, and multi-family dwellings are not on that list. Design review is still required for multi-family residential units within an HR district under section 17.44.040.
Real party in interest Joe McGrath purchased the 770-acre lot at 632 McCorkle Avenue, an area within the City’s HR district, intending to build multi-family dwellings on the property. The lot contained a dilapidated single-family home and its soil had been contaminated with lead by a prior occupant. McGrath committed to remediating this contamination with Napa County. He submitted an application for a demolition permit to demolish the existing structure as well as a design review plan for the proposed eight units. The application was deemed complete by the City’s Planning Commission staff in October 2016, who prepared a report concluding (1) the proposed project fell within the Class 32 infill exemption of CEQA Guidelines section 15332 and was thus exempt from CEQA; and (2) the project met the criteria for design review.
The project came before the full Planning Commission in a hearing held on December 6, 2016. It was opposed by several neighbors and by appellants, who argued the project should not be approved because: (1) the site of the proposed development was contaminated; (2) McCorkle Avenue contains no storm drains and routinely floods; (3) there is little public open space in the area and children are required to play in the street; (4) the space required for a firetruck turnaround was not adequate; (5) the proposed project was located in a historical district, and was not consistent with the design of four historical homes located across the street; and (6) the proposed project was next door to the pending multi-family Brenkle project, and the cumulative effects of those projects would be significant. The City Attorney advised the Planning Commission that because the St. Helena Municipal Code now did not require issuance of a use permit for multi-family dwellings in HR districts, the Commission was required to approve the project so long as it met the design review criteria. Issues pertaining to use, such as parking, traffic, safety and soil remediation, were not to be considered. The City Attorney indicated he was confident that a Class 32 exemption applied to the project under CEQA Guidelines section 15332, but that in any event CEQA would not apply to a nondiscretionary project such as this.
Appellants appealed to the City Council. A hearing was held on January 24, 2017. The City Attorney advised the City Council it was limited to “the design aspects of this project” and reiterated that a Class 32 exemption applied but if it did not, review was still limited due to there being no use permit required.
The City Council voted 3-2 to deny the appeal and approve the action of the Planning Commission. It issued a resolution making findings in support of its approval for design review. It additionally made findings in the resolution that the project was consistent with the general plan’s goals of permitting infill development, encouraging a mix of housing types and prices, addressing workforce housing, encouraging higher density where appropriate, and allowing the conversion of single-family homes to multi-family housing. The resolution addressed specifically the arguments that the project was not consistent with the general plan.
Appellants filed a petition for writ of mandate and first amended petition for writ of mandate against the City and City Council, alleging violations of CEQA and local zoning laws. The City and City Council answered and, after briefs were filed, a hearing was held. The trial court denied the petition.
Appellants argue the City and City Council did not proceed in the manner required by law. Appellants cite authority stating that CEQA requires a decision by the elected City body—here, the City Council—and contend that no such decision was made in this case because the City Council did not consider issues unrelated to aesthetics when determining that CEQA did not apply. We disagree.
The City Council did approve the project without requiring an EIR or issuing a negative declaration, finding the Class 32 infill exemption applied and in any event it could not consider issues other than design review in light of the local ordinance. Appellants argue that because the City Council limited its review of environmental issues, the case is akin to Vedanta. We disagree. In Vedanta, the court reversed after it found that a tie vote during an appeal to the board of supervisors, which left the decision of the planning commission in that case intact by default, did not amount to the required consideration by the board. (Vedanta, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 527.) But the City Council in this case did act—just not in the way that appellants had hoped. As we shall explain, the City Council properly limited the scope of its review as required by the ordinance. But it did not abdicate its duty to act, and did not delegate its ultimate duty to the Planning Commission in so doing.
Sections 17.08.060, 17.08.180(A) and 17.08.180(H) of the St. Helena Municipal Code did not require the City Council to consider the environmental consequences of a multi-family project in an HR district as appellants suggest. Collectively, those ordinances provide that an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission may be taken to the full City Council, that the City Council’s review is de novo, and that the final decision-making body (here, the City Council) may modify a proposed discretionary project. They do not expand the City Council’s discretion beyond the language of the Municipal Code itself.
Appellants complain the City Council’s decision to deny the appeal was unsupported because it did not consider the whole of the project before approving it. Appellants contend that before the City Council could properly adopt a Class 32 infill exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15332, it was required by the terms of that exemption to determine whether the proposed project would “ ‘result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality.’ ” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15332(d).) They also contend the City Council should have considered the applicability of a blanket exception to this categorical exemption, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2, which provides, “[a] categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c); Banker’s Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 249, 260.) Appellants argue the City Council took the City Attorney’s advice and failed to consider any environmental issues relating to this project.
Assuming the City Council did not consider traffic, noise or air and water quality for purposes of the Class 32 exemption despite its findings to the contrary, it nonetheless properly found that its discretion was limited to design review, given that no use permit was required for multi-family housing in HR districts. (See Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1010–1011 (Friends of Davis) [when use is consistent with local zoning and a use permit either is not required or has been obtained, issuance of building permit is usually ministerial act].) It also found, appropriately, that the issues addressed during design review did not require the separate invocation of CEQA.
Appellants’ complaints about the project include its appearance relative to the historical homes in the area. This does not mean review under CEQA was required. “[W]e do not believe that our Legislature in enacting CEQA. . . intended to require an EIR where the sole environmental impact is the aesthetic merit of a building in a highly developed area. [Citations.] To rule otherwise would mean that an EIR would be required for every urban building project that is not exempt under CEQA if enough people could be marshaled to complain about how it will look. While there may be situations where it is unclear whether an aesthetic impact like the one alleged here arises in a ‘particularly sensitive’ context ([CEQA] Guidelines, § 15300.2(c) [exemption shall not be granted “when there is a reasonable possibility the activity will have an unusual effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances”]) where it could be considered environmentally significant, this case does not test that boundary.” (Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 592 (Bowman).) While local laws do not preempt CEQA, “aesthetic issues like the one raised here are ordinarily the province of local design review, not CEQA.” (Id. at p. 593.) “Where a project must undergo design review under local law, that process itself can be found to mitigate purely aesthetic impacts to insignificance, even if some people are dissatisfied with the outcome.
A contrary holding that mandated redundant analysis would only produce needless delay and expense.” (Id. at p. 594.) St. Helena is not as urbanized as Berkeley, the site of the project in Bowman, but the principles of that case apply to the design review in this case, which cannot be used to impose environmental conditions.
It is also unnecessary to resolve whether the Class 32 infill exemption was inapplicable due to an exception because “there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(c).) Because CEQA was limited in scope to design review whether or not the Class 32 exemption applied, any exception to the exemption was irrelevant. In any event, the subdivision establishing the exception applies only when the challenger proves both an unusual circumstance and a significant environmental effect as a result of that circumstance. (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1105; Walters v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, 819–820.) Nothing about the proposed project was “unusual” within the meaning of the CEQA Guidelines.
The judgment is affirmed. Ordinary costs on appeal are awarded to respondents.
The California Building Industry Association, California Infill Builders Federation, Treasury Wine Estates, Americas LLC, and the California Chapter of the American Planning Association have each filed a request that our opinion filed on December 18, 2018, be certified for publication. It appears that our opinion meets the standards set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c). The requests are GRANTED. The opinion is ordered published in the Official Reports.
Napa County Superior Court, No. 17CV000205, Michael L. Byrne; Mark S. Boessenecker, Judges.
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, Mathew D. Hinks; Jackson Lewis P.C., David Bradshaw and Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC, Jonathan Welner for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Thomas B. Brown, Stephen E. Velyvis for Defendants and Respondents.
Monchamp Meldrum, Amanda Monchamp and Joanna L. Meldrum for Real Party in Interest.

References: § 21000
 § 15332
 § 15300
 v. 
 v. 
 § 15300
 v. 
 § 15300
 v. 
 v.