Roseville v. City of Roseville

SAVE HISTORIC ROSEVILLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF ROSEVILLE et al., Defendants and Respondents.

C090754

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer)

November 18, 2020

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. SCV0042495)

Plaintiff Save Historic Roseville (Historic Roseville) filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief (petition) seeking to enjoin defendants the City of Roseville (City) and Junction Station, LP (collectively defendants) from building a residential structure without further environmental review at the location the City's specific plan and associated environmental impact report designated a parking structure. Historic Roseville brought its petition following the City's approval of a development agreement, which occurred months after the City approved a permit and tentative subdivision map. The issue in this appeal is whether the City's approval of the permit and tentative subdivision map constituted approval of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (the Act) or whether it was the subsequent approval of the development agreement that constituted the approval.

We agree with defendants that the City's approval of the permit and tentative subdivision map constituted approval of the project. Thus, Historic Roseville was required to file its petition within 35 days of the City's filing of a notice of exemption following those approvals. (See Pub. Resources Code,¹ §§ 21152, subd. (b), 21167, subd. (d); Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 14, § 15112, subd. (c)(2).) Because Historic Roseville failed to timely file its petition, its petition is barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND²

In April 2009, the City amended its general plan to include the downtown specific plan (specific plan). The specific plan "encompasses 176-acres and includes the Historic Old Town, Vernon Street District and Royer Saugstad Parks. The Plan area is divided by 11 districts and emphasizes the addition of mixed-use and residential development. At buildout, the Plan area is expected to accommodate 900,000 square feet of new ground floor retail development, 1,020 new residential units, and a cumulative total of 4.4million square feet. The [specific plan] is the overriding policy document and contains the guiding principles for development of the plan area."

The specific plan provides: "The focus in Historic Old Town is to promote a mix of entertainment/commercial/residential uses that will breathe life into Historic Old Town and create the desired aesthetic and intensity." Further, "[t]he goal is to have Historic Old Town become a vibrant, energetic, exciting urban area that draws young professionals, empty nesters, and families who enjoy energetic urban settings to it because of the lifestyle and convenience offered by shops, entertainment, restaurants and residences being all in one place. Historic Old Town will be highly walkable aided by this denser urban fabric."

One of Historic Old Town's five districts is the Historic Old Town Commercial District (district). The specific plan provides: "The focus of the [district] is to promote a unique mix of entertainment/commercial/residential uses that will breathe life into Historic Old Town and create the desired aesthetic and intensity. The intent of this [d]istrict is to create a lively destination where nightclubs, comedy clubs, dinner theatres, bars, lounges, and restaurants are within walking distance of new residential uses . . . . [¶] Higher density residential and commercial will be contextually designed, and alleys will provide exciting development opportunities for both commercial and residential uses. An essential element to the success of this [d]istrict is good quality and diverse residential options and a range of housing products."

The specific plan designates two adjoining lots in the district as catalyst sites. "When [catalyst sites are] developed as mixed-use or high density housing projects, they will serve as indicators of positive change in Downtown. In order to facilitate early development of these sites, 'Pre-design' concepts have been developed . . . ." "There are five 'Pre-Design' projects within the Specific Plan. These projects have been designed to reflect the development standards of the Plan. They take property that is currently underutilized and provide a project that supports the vision and is viable for developmentby the private sector. These project sites are exempt from future entitlement review, as long as the construction drawings are substantially consistent with what has been developed. This approach is similar to the City's existing major project permit process, where an initial design concept is approved. Additionally, the Environmental Impact Report analyzes the development impacts at a 'project' level."

The Downtown Code, which was adopted by the City around the same time it adopted the specific plan provides: "Implementation of these projects will be exempt from the City's Design Review Process. To receive this exemption, the future project will need to follow the process outlined in . . . the Downtown Specific Plan, which is reflective of an administrative approval process, and the project shall be substantially consistent with the plans that are approved as part of the Specific Plan." "New construction and minor additions that are consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan and Downtown Code will be approved via the Minor Design Review Permit process . . . ." (Bolding omitted.)

The specific plan specifies as a "pre-design" project that the district's adjoining catalyst sites become a parking structure given the accessibility of multiple destinations from the sites' location. "This structured parking will ultimately help to offset the on-site required parking for future development. The approach to using public realm parking to satisfy private parking needs is an essential tool that will help promote redevelopment within the area." "This project proposes to construct a four-level public parking structure providing approximately 400 parking stalls, with a variety of commercial uses [at the catalyst sites] totaling approximately 91,000 square feet. Access to the parking structure would be available from Pacific Street, preserving the Church Street frontage for retail uses on the ground floor . . . ." An environmental impact report analyzing the specific plan's impact on the environment was prepared and certified by the City.

In April 2016, the City allocated $3,760,000 from its affordable housing fund to build Junction Crossing, a 100 percent affordable housing community offering 80 units toaccommodate very-low and low-income households. Two years later, the City's planning commission approved a minor design review permit and a tentative subdivision map to allow construction of the housing community on the district's catalyst sites (the permit). The City filed a notice of exemption with the Placer County clerk indicating the housing community was exempt from the Act for multiple reasons. Historic Roseville's attorney and member Ryan Richards appealed the planning commission's approval of the permit and tentative subdivision map.

In June 2018, the city council denied Richards's appeal and approved the permit, as well as the tentative subdivision map. In so doing, the City recognized the specific plan requires approval of minor design review permits for projects that deviate from a "pre-design" plan. The City further found the housing community deviated from the "pre-design" project, but was "consistent with the design guidelines and regulations" of the City and "[t]he proposed improvement complies with all applicable standards and requirements of the [City], with the applicable goals, policies and objectives set forth in the General Plan and the . . . Specific Plan." Accordingly, the City determined the housing community "to be consistent with the goals, policies, and regulations of the General Plan [and] Specific Plan . . . ; and [¶] . . . eliminating the private/public parking garage that is included in the Pre-Design Project for [the catalyst sites] does not require an amendment to the . . . Specific Plan." The City again filed a notice of exemption with the Placer County clerk.

The notice of exemption summarized the project as follows: "A Minor Design Review Permit to allow a four-story, approximately 80,460 square feet, 80-unit affordable multi-family residential building, with associated parking. A Tentative Subdivision Map to allow the merging and resubdivision of 11 parcels, totaling approximately 1.38 acres, into two parcels (Parcel 1 = 0.07 acres, Parcel 2 = 1.31 acres), with right-of-way abandonments and dedications, consistent with Government CodeSection 66499.20.2." The notice of exemption further provides the project is exempt from the Act for multiple reasons.

In January 2019, the city council acting in its role as housing successor, passed a resolution approving a disposition and development agreement between the City and Junction Station, LP "for the development of 80 affordable housing units utilizing City and housing successor affordable housing funds and the sale of City property at" the catalyst sites (agreement). Following the City's approval of the agreement, it filed a notice of exemption with the Placer County clerk.

On February 7, 2019, Historic Roseville filed the instant petition. In it, Historic Roseville requested a declaration that the City violated the Act by approving the agreement without also adopting a negative declaration or an environmental impact report. Historic Roseville...