Friends of Westwanda Drive v. City of L. A.

1

FRIENDS OF WESTWANDA DRIVE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent;

KARLA SHAHIN et al., Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.

B314932

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division

January 22, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 19STCP04113. Mitchell L. Beckloff, Judge.

Channel Law Group, Jamie T. Hall and Julian K. Quattlebaum for Plaintiff and Appellant. Luna &Glushon and Kristina Kropp for Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.

Hydee Felstein Soto, City Attorney, Timothy McWilliams, Managing City Attorney, and Steven G. Martin, Deputy City Attorney for Defendant and Respondent.

LUI P. J.

Friends of Westwanda Drive (Friends), an unincorporated association sought to set aside a determination by the City of Los Angeles (City) that a tree-removal permit and proposed construction of a home (Project) were exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). The trial court denied the writ petition, concluding in part, the action is moot. We affirm the decision, concluding the case is moot.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Facts

Karla Shahin owns a lot on the corner of Westwanda Drive and Stovell Lane in Benedict Canyon. The lot is surrounded by existing single-family homes in a hillside residential development. Real parties in interest Shahin and her husband, Armen Melkonians, (collectively real parties) planned to build a two-story single-family home with a footprint of 1,500 square feet (the Project) on the lot.

As relevant here, the Project required the removal of three City-protected Coast Live Oak trees and six "remnant" California Black Walnut tree stumps.^[1] The Project was designed to accommodate the four remaining Coast Live Oak trees on the lot.

On September 26, 2017, Shahin applied to the Bureau of Street Services (BSS) for a tree-removal permit and included an arborist's report as required by the City's Protected Tree Ordinance. BSS recommended the tree-removal permit be approved, the Project be found exempt from CEQA environmental review, and 12 replacement trees be planted pursuant to the ordinance.

On March 7, 2018, the Board of Public Works held a hearing to consider the tree-removal permit. Two speakers opposed removing the protected trees, arguing that doing so would harm the Benedict Canyon ecosystem and a wildlife corridor in the area. They claimed "dozens" of residents were against the tree-removal.

During the hearing, the Board of Public Works discussed how the Project was to be constructed to avoid harming the remaining and replacement protected trees and to minimize any negative impacts on the environment caused by removing the trees. When the hearing concluded, the Board of Public Works voted to approve Shahin's permit application and found the Project was exempt under CEQA. Issuance of the permit was conditioned on the planting of replacement trees. On March 14, 2018, BSS issued the tree-removal permit. On March 15, 2018, the three trees and six stumps were removed.

II. Administrative Appeals

On August 31, 2018, Friends appealed the Board of Public Works's decision. BSS submitted a report recommending the appeal be denied.

The appeal was forwarded to the City Council's Public Works and Gang Reduction Committee. Following an August 7, 2019 hearing, the appeal was then forwarded to the City Council without recommendation.

On August 20, 2019, the City Council heard and denied the appeal. The same day, the City filed a Notice of Exemption (NOE) with the recorder's office of Los Angeles County. As pertinent here, the NOE stated the Project was approved and included the removal of three protected trees and six tree stumps with the planting of replacement trees pursuant to the Protected Tree Ordinance. The NOE also stated the Project qualified for construction under CEQA categorical exemptions and no CEQA exceptions applied.

III. Writ Proceedings

Friends sought a writ of mandate compelling the City to vacate and set aside the tree-removal permit, among others, and to prepare and certify a legally adequate environmental review under CEQA for the project.

The petition pleaded traditional mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) and, in the alternative, administrative mandamus (id., § 1094.5).

The trial court clearly viewed the petition as seeking administrative mandamus, given that Friends had pursued an administrative appeal before the City Council and the court had an administrative record before it. (See Stanford Vina Ranch Irrigation Co. v. State of California (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 976, 995-996.)

Following a lengthy hearing, the trial court denied the writ petition on April 23, 2021. In its written ruling, the court concluded the Project fell into one but not both category exemptions found by the City and there were no applicable exceptions. The court also concluded the entire action was moot; the trees had been removed. On June 21, 2021, the trial court entered judgment for the City. This appeal followed on August 19, 2021.

DISCUSSION

I. Timeliness of the Appeal

We reject the City's threshold contention Friends's appeal must be dismissed as untimely. Relying on Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 43, review granted June 15, 2022, S274147 (Meinhardt), and cases cited therein, the City argues Friends failed to file the notice of appeal within the requisite 60 days after service of the trial court's April 23, 2021 order denying the petition. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(B).)

The appellate court in Meinhardt, supra, 76 Cal.App.5th 43, review granted, held when "a court has entered a ruling on a writ petition that constitutes a final judgment, any party seeking appellate review of that ruling must timely appeal from that final judgment-and the time to file a notice of appeal is not restarted by the trial court's subsequent entry of a document styled as a 'judgment' that merely reiterates the prior final judgment." (Id. at p. 50.) Here, by contrast, the trial court's order of April 23, 2021 was not a final judgment. Instead, the court ordered the City to prepare and serve a judgment, and also allowed Friends 10 days in which to object and prepare an alternative form of judgment for the court's consideration. The time for Friends to appeal began running when the court entered its final judgment on June 21, 2021. Friends timely filed a notice of appeal on August 19, 2021, 59 days from the entry of judgment.

II. CEQA Overview

CEQA "establishes a comprehensive scheme to provide long-term protection to the environment. It prescribes review procedures a public agency must follow before approving or carrying out certain projects." (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1092.) "Under CEQA and its implementing guidelines, an agency generally conducts an initial study to determine 'if the project may have a significant effect on the environment.'" (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 945.) "If there is substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment," then the agency must generate an environmental impact report (EIR) prior to approving the project. (Ibid.)

"For policy reasons, the Legislature has expressly exempted several categories of projects from review under CEQA. [Citation.] By statute, the Legislature has also directed the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency . . . to establish 'a list of classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and that shall be exempt from' CEQA." (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1092.) There are 33 categorical exemptions. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15300-15333.^[2]) Among them is the Class 3 exemption for small structures (Guidelines, § 15303) and the Class 32 exemption for infill development projects (Guidelines, § 15332). The City decided the Project fell into both categorical exemptions, thereby obviating the need for an EIR. (Arcadians for Environmental Preservation v. City of Arcadia (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 418, 429 ["If an exemption applies, the project is excused from environmental review"].)

Categorical exemptions, however, can be subject to certain exceptions. If an exception applies, the exemption is foreclosed, and an EIR is necessary. (Arcadians for Environmental Preservation v. City of Arcadia, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 436; Guidelines, § 15300.2.)

Before the City Council and the trial court, Friends maintained, in part, that based on the Project's "location" and/or "unusual circumstances" the Class 3 and Class 32 category exemptions were unavailable, thereby requiring an EIR. (See Guidelines, § 15300.2, subds. (a) [location exception] &(c) [unusual circumstances exception].^[3]) In a nutshell, Friends's theory was removing the protected trees not only damages the trees, but also destroys the habitat (the Coast Live Oak-California Black Walnut woodland) created by having trees on the lot, which, in turn, diminishes the number of wildlife species depending on the woodland for survival.

III. Mootness

Generally courts do not issue advisory opinions based on hypothetical facts or controversies that are merely academic. (People v. Slayton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1076, 1084; Sweeney v. California Regional Water Quality Control Bd. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 1093, 1135.) A case" 'should be dismissed as moot when the occurrence of events renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant appellant any effective relief.'" (Santa Monica Baykeeper v. City of Malibu ...