CEQA, Brown Act and Planning and Zoning Law Challenges Overcome in Development Project

02 Jun 2016 00:00:00 -0800

A team of Best Best & Krieger LLP attorneys successfully defeated environmental and other legal challenges to a master planned infill residential and habitat preservation project in the City of Montebello. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John A. Torribio denied a petition for a writ of mandate that claimed the project plan was inconsistent with the City’s General Plan and that the City violated open meeting laws during the approval process. In a decision issued May 23, Torribio found both those claims and others lacked merit.

The project is planned on a nearly 500-acre plot of undeveloped land in Montebello. The land is being used for oil production, and has been for a century. About 10 years ago, the plan to develop about 150 acres of the site into a residential community was proposed. The rest of the site will be dedicated to open space uses, with approximately 260 acres reserved for the California gnatcatcher, a species designated as threatened by the federal government. The development also includes trails and parks, allowing the public access to the space for the first time in recent history.

Following numerous public hearings before both the City Council and the Planning Commission, as well as several revisions to the environmental impact report based on feedback from the public and other public agencies, the plan was approved in June 2015. A month later, the lawsuit was filed.

The petitioner claimed the project should be halted because the City’s administrative process was flawed in that the wrong address for a public hearing was on the City’s website. However, noting that the correct address was on the properly noticed meeting agenda, Torribio, rejected the claim. He also rejected a claim that the plan was inconsistent with the City’s General Plan for not addressing low-income and special needs housing issues. Torribio noted that the proposed project need only be “compatible” with the General Plan and that they are, indeed, compatible in that they do not preclude affordable housing and programs to assist the elderly and the disabled elsewhere in the City. He also found that the petitioner did not properly follow procedure on other claims, and rejected those.

The case is Citizens for Open and Public Participation v. City of Montebello, BS156922.

BB&K Attorneys Successfully Defend City Client from Brown Act and Other Claims

12 Dec 2014 00:00:00 -0800

In Ontario Mountain Village Association et al v. City of Ontario, Best Best & Krieger LLP attorneys Michelle Ouellette, Richard T. Egger and Sarah Owsowitz successfully defended the legality of an ordinance by the City of Ontario that extended by one-year the expiration dates for all development plans, conditional use permits and variance approvals. The extension was challenged in a lawsuit on the alleged grounds that the City violated the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The plaintiffs also alleged violation of their due process rights.

The lawsuit was filed after the City approved extension of the expiration dates in December 2011 — as it had done several times previously to support development and economic recovery in the City. The plaintiffs claimed the City violated the Brown Act, which guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies, and their due process rights by failing to disclose a legal memorandum. They also alleged the City violated CEQA by not substantiating that the ordinance extending the expiration dates was exempt from environmental review, among other claims.

As the trial court had done, the 2nd District Court of Appeal, in an opinion issued Dec. 11, sided with BB&K attorneys and rejected all the plaintiffs’ claims.

Best Best & Krieger News Feed

CEQA, Brown Act and Planning and Zoning Law Challenges Overcome in Development Project

BB&K Attorneys Successfully Defend City Client from Brown Act and Other Claims