STATEMENT OF DECISION ON PETITIONS FOR MANDAI c3 F

S
i
9
x
no Cour o
e
t
tY of Los Ariyelesa
O
f
r
sh
13 5
e
r
uG
ei
i
vF
uc
cri
rj
rrec
STATEMENT OF DECISION ON PETITIONS FOR MANDAI c
3F
MALIBU COMMUNITY ALLIANCE CAMI WINIKOFF STEPHEN UHRING v
CITY OF MALIBU CITY COLTNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU Case No
BS138967
MALIBU COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ALLIANCE MALIBU TOWNSHIP
COUNCIL INC v CITY OF MALIBU CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MALIBU Case No BS138967 originally BS 138633
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Real Party in Interest
Petitioners challenge the action of the City of Malibu and its City Council in
approving on June 25 2012 the issuance of a coastal development permit CDP and a
conditional use permit CUP
together the Permits
to the Santa Monica
Malibu
Unified School District for the Field Lights Project
The Permits authorized the School District to erect and operate structures to
provide stadium lighting to the main athletic field at the Malibu Middle and High School
MMHS MMHS is situated in a semi
rural residential area located a quarter mile inland
from Zuma Beach The structures are four 70
foot light standards each with twelve
500 watt lamps mounted on cross
1
bars The Permits limited the operation of the field
lights during the school year The lights during daylight savings time 1 Sunday in
November through the 2 Sunday in March may be operated on three nights per week
until 7
30 p
m for a total of 45 nights and additionally in the period September 1
through May 31 the lights may be operated a total of 16 nights until 10
30 p
m
provided the nights are non
consecutive and not more than 2 per week The cross
bars
supporting the lights are taken down and stored during the summer leaving the standards
in place The opponents object to light pollution after sunset caused by the field lights
The Field Lights Project has been reviewed by the School District the California
Coastal Commission and the Malibu City Council at different times A detailed review of
the administrative history is not necessary For a description of the Project
s evolution
see the Staff report AR 709
876 the record at AR 392
94 523 525 and RJN Exh F
Planning Commission Res 13
15
1
Briefly however the School District is the Lead Agency The District approved
the Field Lights Project and under CEQA issued a mitigated negative declaration MND
for the Project in July 2009 The City of Malibu is within the jurisdiction of the
California Coastal Commission so the Field Lights Project was required to comply with
the Local Coastal Plan LCP See Public Resources Code section 30108
6 The Coastal
Commission rejected the project because the LCP did not then permit sports lighting
but after the LCP was amended the Coastal Commission on October 5 2011 authorized
the City to issue Permits for the Field Light Project subject to the usage limitations
mentioned above The School District on April 19 2012 adopted Resolution No 26
11
to approve the revised Field Lights Project and to approve MND Addendum AR 3099
3100
The City of Malibu is the Responsible Agency The School District
s application
was scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission on June 5 2012 The
Planning Commission finding that it did not have a disinterested quorum removed the
application from its agenda and placed it before the City Council for first instance
review The City Council approved the Permits in its Resolution No 12
28 on June 25
2012 AR 5
29
Petitioners filed their Petitions for Writ of Mandate within the 60 day limitations
period Petitioners applied for a Preliminary Injunction but their application was denied
in Department 85 on November 13 2012 The field lights have been in use during the
last three school years
PETITIONERS CONTENTIONS
Petitioners argue first that the City Council was without authority to act to
approve the Permits because the Planning Commission had not first acted on the School
s application for the Permits
District
Petitioners make two arguments under the California Environmental Quality Act
Public Resources section 21000 et seq CEQA They argue the City Council did not
The Lead Agency under CEQA is the public agency which has the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect
upon the environment Public Resources Code section 21067
The Responsible Agent under CEQA means a public agency other than the
lead agency which has responsibility for carrying out or approving a project Public
Resources Code section 21069
2
comply with CEQA because the City Council did not consider an American Medical
Association AMA report reviewing scientific literature relating to the possible harmful
health effects of prolonged exposure to nighttime illumination
Petitioners also argue that the City Council violated CEQA because it did not
when it considered the School Lights Project concurrently consider the environmental
impacts of a separate project known as the MMHS Campus Improvement Project that
included safety and security lighting for a 150 space parking lot that was to be located
next to the athletic field That project is not built its application is pending before the
Coastal Commission
The court finds these arguments legally unavailing and therefore shall deny the
Petitions for Writ of Mandate
ISSUE ONE MALIBU
S PLANNING COMMISSION PROPERLY CONCLUDED IT
COULD NOT PROVIDE A FAIR HEARING ON THE DISTRICT
S APPLICATION
Petitioners argue that the Malibu City Council had no authority under the Malibu
Municipal Code to act on the School District
s applications for the Field Lights Project
and therefore its approval of the Permits on June 25 2012 was void Malibu
s
ordinances provide that the City Council is to act on any appeal that may be taken from
decisions of the City
s Planning Commission The Planning Commission did not act on
the School District
s application because it lacked a disinterested quorum
A AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING REQUIRES A DISINTERESTED QUORUM
Malibu five
s
person Planning Commission was scheduled to conduct a public
hearing and to vote on the School District
s application for the CUP
CDP Permits on
June 5 2012 AR 2268
2270 The agenda minutes for the June 5 meeting reflect that the
chair Roohi Stack announced the application would be removed from the agenda At
s request Assistant City Attorney Greg Kovacevich made this statement as
Stack
reported in the minutes
Item 6
G which pertains to the proposed erection of lighting at the
Malibu High School sports field is going to be taken off calendar
tonight because the Commission is unable to produce an unconflicted
unbiased quorum And the reason is that Commissioner Jennings lives
within close proximity and his participation is precluded by the Political
Reform Act Commissioner Stack serves as Treasurer of the Shark Fund
which is the main fundraising body for Malibu High School And she
3
has made a 500 dollar donation earmarked specifically in support of the
lights And Commissioner Pierson has also made a donation of 500
dollars to support the lights at Malibu High School So for that reason
the item is going to be moved directly to the City Council for hearing in
the first instance And I believe staff knows the date
Chairperson
Stack then asked can
someone
make
a
motion
for approval of the agenda
without the lights Such a motion was moved and seconded and all five commissioners
voted its adoption The motion provided that the School District
s application would be
placed on the City Council
s agenda for its meeting scheduled for June 25 2012
On June 20 the staff put a one
page memo into the project file to provide further
background for the Planning Commission
s action on June 5 AR 2271 The memo titled
Explanation of Conflicts of Interest reports that Commissioners Stack and Pierson
before the June 5 meeting contacted and advised the Planning Director of the existence
of conflict issues relating to three commissioners themselves and Jennings The memo
states The Planning Director then contacted the City Attorney
s office with the
information who then contacted the Planning Commissioners to discuss The memo
adds this further explanation from the City Attorney
In order to maintain unbiased review and action by the Planning
the City Attorney advised the Planning Commission
that it would be unable to produce an unconflicted and unbiased
Commission
quorum to hear the matter Municipal law prohibits public officials
from participating in making or attempting to influence governmental
decision in which they have a conflict of interest and where the matter
is quasijudicial as is the case of reviewing the subject CDP
CUP there
are additional obligations to provide due process and a fair hearing
Petitioners briefs do not argue that Commissioner Jennings and Commissioner
Stack were not disqualified from participating in Planning Commission proceedings
related to the Field Lights Project
Petitioners argue however that Commissioner Pierson could and should have
participated even though as stated in the meeting minutes he had previously made a
500 dollar donation to support the lights at Malibu High School The court concludes
that Pierson properly recused himself from participating in the Planning Commission
s
4
consideration of the Field Lighting Project The modern view is that public decision
makers are prohibited from acting where they are subject to a conflict of interest that
prohibits public officials from placing themselves in position where their private
personal interests may conflict with their public duties Clark v City ofHermosa Beach
1996 48 Ca1
4th 1152 1171 A member of a planning commission is required to
App
act in the public interest Government Code section 65101
a
The Planning Commission in considering the School District
s application for
CUP Permits was acting in a quasijudicial capacity rather than in a quasi
CPA
legislative capacity because the application involved the determination and application
of facts peculiar to the individual case as distinct from the adoption of rules of general
application on the basis of broad public policy Accordingly the Planning Commission
was required to meet due process requirements including currently prevailing standards
of decision
maker impartiality Gai v City ofSelma l 998 68 Cal
4th 213 220
App
quoting from Wong Yang Sung v McGrath 1950 339 U
S 33 50
The court in Clark v City ofHermosa Beach supra issued a writ of mandate to
invalidate a City Council decision because a council member who voted against the
developer owned property that would be affected As the Clark court said an
individual has the
of fair
to a
tribunal which meets
standards of impartiality
Biased
impermissible and even the probability of unfairness is to be
Our Supreme Court has declined to fix rigid procedures for the protection
decision makers
avoided
right
are
procedure rights
but it is inconceivable to us that such rights would not include
impartiality of the adjudicators Id at 1170
The court in Nasha v City ofLos Angeles 2004 125 Cal
4th 470 issued a
App
writ of mandate vacating a Planning Commission denial because a commission member
voting against the project had written and published in a residents association newsletter
an article that the court found advocated against the project before the Planning
Commission vote The court held that there was an unacceptable level of actual bias on
the part of that decision maker Nashc quoting from the Gai decision held that a quasi
judicial hearing must be conducted before a reasonably impartial noninvolved
reviewer Id at 482
3 The Shark Fund the court is informed supports various projects of Malibu
Middle and High School However if a donation is specifically earmarked for the
lighting project the donation can only be used the Field Lights Project at MMHS The
field lights were funded entirely from donations to the Shark Fund
5
The Clark decision may be distinguished factually because the council member
there was economically conflicted as he owned property that would be affected by the
project Nasha however is a close analogy There the Planning Commission
s decision
was invalidated because a commissioner voting in the majority was found not to be a
reasonably impartial noninvolved reviewer due to his written advocacy against the
project before the commission hearing
A reasonable observer would similarly conclude that Commissioner Pierson could
not be a
reasonably impartial noninvolved reviewer for the School Lights Project
Commissioner Pierson
s 500 donation for the lights must be considered to be a public
declaration of his support for the Field Lights Project Petitioners speculate that there
may be circumstances outside this record that would show that Commissioner Pierson
was not pre
committed to the project See Reply Br p
15 But in this case the City
Attorney after discussing the matter with Pierson and Commissioner Stack concluded
that their participation in the Planning Commission
s decision
making was not consistent
with due process The record suggests moreover that Commissioner Pierson believed he
should not participate in the Planning Commission
s consideration of the Field Lights
Project because his donation created at least the appearance of his bias in favor of the
lights He had disclosed his 500 donation for the lights to the Planning Director as a
possible conflict and he did not express any reservation when the Assistant City
Attorney at the Planning Commission meeting explained that Pierson
s 500 donation
for the lights as well as Jennings and Stack
s disqualifications prevented the
Commission from having an unconflicted unbiased quorum as to the Field Lights
Project Commissioner Pierson along with the other Commissioners voted to remove the
School District
s application from the agenda again indicating his agreement to the view
that the Commission did not have a disinterested quorum
Commissioner Pierson was correctly deemed disqualified from sitting as a
Planning Commissioner to consider the Field Lights Project The Planning Commission
properly determined it lacked a disinterested quorum to consider the Field Lights Project
Had the Planning Commission approved the application with Commissioner Pierson
voting with the majority its approval could have been successfully challenged Nasha
supra
B RULE OF NECESSITY DID NOT REQUIRE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
TAKE ACTION ON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
S APPLICATION FOR PERMITS
Petitioners also argue that the Planning Commission could have decided the
School District
s application
even if it lacked a disinterested quorum required for a fair
under the Rule ofNecessity That common law Rule is succinctly expressed in
hearing
6
Gonzalves v City ofDairy Valley 1968 265 Ca1
2d 400 404 as follows
App
The rule is well settled that where an administrative body has a duty
to act upon a matter that is before it and is the only entity capable to
act in the matter the fact that the members may have a personal interest
in the result of the action taken does not disqualify them to perform
their duty It is a rule of necessity that has been followed consistently
Petitioners argue that if Commissioner Pierson was disqualifed as well as
Commissioners Jennings and Stack the Planning Commission nonetheless under the
Rule of Necessity could have acted on the School District
s application relying on
s vote to provide a quorum An appeal could then have been taken to obtain
Pierson
review by the City Council Absent an appeal petitioners contend the City Council
illegally assumed jurisdiction so as to render void its approval of the School District
s
application Petitioners core contention is this the Planning Commission under
municipal ordinance was required to act on a CDP
CUP application in the first instance
and its failure to do so when it legally could have acted deprived the City Council of
authority to act on the application
But Petitioners argument turns on its contention that the Planning Commission
was the only body that was legally capable of acting in the first instance on the
School District
s application Petitioners assert that under their reading of the applicable
municipal code provisions the City Council was only authorized to hear appeals from the
Planning Commission The ordinances that Petitioners rely upon are set forth in the
margin The court finds Petitioners restrictive interpretation of the applicable
4 With respect to the CUP the governing municipal code provisions provide
Major conditional use permits shall be decided upon by the
planning commission Malibu Municipal Code 66
17
C
060
Any person aggrieved in a similar manner by such a decision
made by the planning commission may appeal such action to
the city council Malibu Municipal Code 17
230
04
With respect to the CDP the LCP provides in section 13
7B
All other coastal development permits those beyond powers delegated
to the City
s planning manager shall be decided upon by the Planning
7
ordinances unreasonable and illogical
State law governs the manner by which cities may assign planning functions to
planning commissions Government Code section 65100 provides
There is in each
city
a planning agency with powers necessary to
carry out the purposes of this title The legislative body of each city
shall by ordinance assign the functions of the planning agency to
one or more
planning
commissions
as it deems appropriate and
necessary In the absence of an assignment the legislative body shall
carry out all the functions of the planning agency
When a city delegates its state
mandated planning functions to a planning
commission an implied term of that delegation is that if the planning commission is
legally unable to perform a planning function the city reserves to itself the power to take
jurisdiction and to perform that function That interpretation is implicit in the statutory
language particularly from the last sentence of section 65100 The planning commission
has only the powers that are delegated to it by the city council the legislative body in
section 65100 Since a city council could not assign an essential function to a body that
could not perform the function it follows that if the delegated body is prevented for a
legal reason from performing its assigned function the city council must be deemed to
have retained the power to act in that case Any other result would require an
interpretation of Government Code section 65100 such that the city council by making
the delegation had disabled itself from performing the delegated function in instances
when the delegated body is legally incapacitated to perform the function
Petitioners in their reply brief rely on Highland Development Co v City ofLos
Angeles 1985 170 Cal
3d 169 In Highland the Los Angeles City Council
App
disliking the approval of a construction permit by the Board of Public Works accepted
an appeal therefrom and revoked the permit Petitioners refer to Highland as being
directly on point because t
he city
s municipal code entrusted the function of issuing
such permits to the Board without provision for any appeal to the city council Reply
Br p 6 Highland is not apposite because the City Charter for Los Angeles established
both the Board and the City Council and conferred separate powers for each body There
was uncertainty as to whether the power to issue the subject permits was assigned to the
Commission subject to appeal provisions in Section 13
20
8
Board or to the City Council but a clarifying municipal ordinance assigned that power to
the Board without providing any appeal right to the City Council The City Council
therefore overstepped its power in granting to itself the power of appeal to the Board
s
decision
The instant facts are different State law under Government Code section 65100
imposed planning functions on the City of Malibu but provided that the Malibu City
Council could assign such powers as it deems appropriate and necessary The City
Council continues to have such power but has chosen to exercise it by retaining
oversight over decisions of the Planning Commission through an appeal process
including a right in itself to appeal a decision made by the Planning Commission If the
Planning Commission is legally prevented from acting the City Council must assume the
responsibility because under the Government Code in the absence of an effective
assignment that permits the City
s planning function to be discharged the City Council
shall carry out all the functions of the planning agency Government Code section
65100
It is notable that petitioners argument results in paralysis unless the Rule of
Necessity can be invoked as a rescue route If Commissioners Jennings Stack and
Pierson could not participate the Planning Commission could not act on the School
s application and under the petitioners theory neither could the City Council
District
because there could be no appeal to the City Council if the Planning Commission could
not act The School District
s application would be at a dead end and the City of Malibu
would be prevented from performing an essential planning function namely deciding
the School District application for CUP
CDP permits
The Rule of Necessity however cannot be utilized in these circumstances to save
petitioners argument No reported decision has applied the Rule ofNecessity to require
an intermediate body such a planning commission to act so that its decision may be
appealed to a final decision maker such as a city council The rationale for the Rule is
that it must be used by the final decision maker because without such a Rule no decision
could be made That is why the Gonzalves court in the passage quoted above invoked
the Rule to allow the action taken by the only entity capable to act in the matter
Gonzalves v City ofDairy Valley 265 Cal
2d supra at 404 The Rule of Necessity
App
is not needed to decide this issue because the Malibu City Council is legally capable of
deciding the School District
s application if the Planning Commission is legally
prevented from doing so Government Code section 65100
The purport of petitioners argument furthermore is that the Planning
Commission would be required under the Rule of Necessity to hold a useless indeed
9
farcical public hearing and conduct a vote that everyone would understand was only for
the purpose of permitting an appeal to the final decision maker The Rule of Necessity
does not exist to require a sham proceeding before a body that is not the final decision
maker The law does not require an idle act Civil Code section 3532
The court finds that the City Council retains the capability to act on the School
s application when the Planning Commission is legally prevented from acting on
District
that application due to the absence of a disinterested quorum
ISSUE TWO THE DRAFT AMA REPORT 4 IS NOT NEW INFORMATION THAT
REQUIRES RECIRCULATION
Petitioners on June 25 2012 the very day the City Council was to meet to act on
the District
s application for the Permits forwarded to the City Clerk a letter from James
Benya an electrical engineer and lighting consultant who was acting for petitioners
Benya attached to his letter Draft Report 4 of the American Medical Association
s
Council on Science and Public Health on the subject of Light Pollutior Adverse Health
Effects of Nighttime Lighting The AMA Report had been issued in April 2012
Petitioners contend that the AMA Report is new information that required the City
to engage in further CEQA review for the Field Lights Project Petitioners are arguing
for the re
circulation of the draft EIR and reconsideration of the MND It is well
established that courts must defer to an agency
s explicit or implicit decision not to
recirculate a draft EIR so long as it is supported by substantial evidence Citizens for a
Sustainable Treasure Island v City and County ofSan Francisco 2014 227
4th 1036
App
Ca1
1063
1064 As the court
stated in Western Placer Citizens etc v
County ofPlacer 2006 144 Cal
4th 890 903 an agency
App
s determination not to
recirculate is given substantial deference and is presumed to be correct
The City
s implicit decision that the AMA Report does not constitute new
information that is relevant to the Field Lights Project is supported by substantial
evidence The AMA Report is a synthesis of numerous reports about the health effects of
pervasive exposure to nighttime lighting The AMA Report does not describe any health
impact caused by limited contact with sports field lighting Mr Benya states that Light
at night has recently been identified as a health risk by the AMA AR 2755 His
statement however is not borne out by a reading of the AMA Report itsel That Report
states as part of its conclusion that Pervasive use of nighttime lighting disrupts these
endogenous processes and creates potentially harmful health effects and
or hazardous
situations with varying degrees of harm The Field Lights Project will not create the
pervasive exposure that is the premise for the possible health effects described in the
10
AMA Report The City limited the operation of the Field Lights to up to 45 nights with
lights off at 7
30 p
m and 16 nights with lights off by 10
30 p
m per year Benya does
not attribute health effects to that limited exposure nor would he be competent to express
that medical opinion The AMA Report does not purport to ascribe possible health
effects to such limited exposure envisioned in the Field Lights Project There is no
evidence the petitioners identify that would require further CEQA review
The AMA report moreover was not competent evidence that the City Council
was required to consider at all Mr Benya is not a medical expert who can offer opinions
on health effects The City Council members are only required to consider opinion
evidence that is competently offered See Lucas Valley Homeowners Assn v County of
Marin 1991 233 Cal
3d 130 156
App
157
ISSUE THREE FURTHER EIR REVIEW OF THE FILED LIGHTS PROJECT IS
NOT REQUIRED BY PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166
s City Council approved the Field Lights Project on June 25 2012
Malibu
About nine months later on March 18 2013 Malibu
s Planning Commission
approved the MMHS Campus Improvement Project The Campus Project includes the
construction of a 150 space parking lot that will have safety and security lights for
evening and night time use The parking lot if built will be next to the athletic field
that is illuminated on certain nights by the field lights
The School District is the lead agency for both projects The School District for
the Field Lights Project filed a mitigated negative declaration MND on July 22 2009
the date of the notice of determination or NOD and a MND Addendum on Apri129
2012 the NOD date
SPetitioners state This AMA Report recognized for the first time that there was
enough scientific information to conclude that night lighting such as the lighting in
question poses a risk to public health which increases as operating hours increase AR
2758 2755 Pet
Br 23 25
27 Having read the AR references the court finds no
support for that statement
6 The Campus Project is a large construction project In addition to the parking lot
it includes the construction of a
administration building the renovation
library
classroom
of other classroom space the reconfiguration of Morning View Drive for a passenger
Res
loading
zone and other
improvements RJN
Exh F
pp 29
28
11
Planning Commission
15
13
The School District for the Campus Project certified the final EIR with two
statements of overriding considerations on February 3 2012 RJN Exh F Planning
Commission Res 13
15 p 2 The EIR for the Campus Project determined that the
parking lot lights as a new source of nighttime illumination will have unavoidable
adverse aesthetic impacts on the night sky causing sky glow The School District after
weighing the benefits and impacts of the Project issued a Statement of Overriding
Considerations SOC to permit the Project to proceed without mitigating its aesthetic
impacts to less than significance
s Planning Commission on March 14 2012 as noted reviewed the EIR for
Malibu
the Campus Project accepted the SOC and approved the entire Project a minor part of
which was the parking lot
s safety and security lights RJN Exh F p 14
Petitioners contend that the City violated CEQA by failing to consider when it
approved the Permits for the Field Lights Project the cumulative impact of the parking lot
lights as part of the Campus Improvement Project I
t is clear that the District
s two
concurrently pending applications at the City were one project under CEQA Reply Br p
25 A failure by the lead agency to consider separate parts of a larger project having
cumulative environmental impacts for the purpose of evaluating and mitigating their
significance is referred to as piecemealing See Banning Ranch Conservancy v City of
Newport Beach 2012 211 Cal
4th 1209 1227
App
1222
The City however is the responsible agency not the lead agency The School
District as the lead agency prepared and certified a MND for the Field Lights Project and
later separately an EIR for the Campus Project Petitioners did not file a legal challenge to
MND or the certification of the EIR CEQA in order to prevent endless attacks on final EIR
documents requires a petitioner to make the factual showing required in Public Resources
Code section 21166 before any supplementation of an EIR is warranted Section 21166
reads as follows
When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project
no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be
MMHS after certification of the EIR instituted a lighting fixture change to
compliant LED fixtures throughout the campus and that change and other
IDA
modifications will substantially reduce the effects of the parking lot on sky glow
compared to the original proposal Nonetheless a new source of sky glow would still
be introduced and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable with respect to
Impact 4
3 of the EIR RJN Exh F Planning Commission Res 15
1
13 p 6
12
required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency unless one or
or more of the following events occurs
a Substantial changes are proposed in the project
b Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under
which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions
in the environmental impact report
c New information which was not known and could not have been
known at the time of the environmental report was certified as complete
becomes available
Petitioners ultimate argument is that a further EIR study is required under subd
b of section 21166 Pet Br pp 19
24 Reply pp 30
23 Petitioners argue that the
substantial changes resulting in new circumstances under which the project is being
undertaken is this the School District
s applications for both projects were pending in
2012 before the City at the same time so that the City could have considered the
environmental impact of the parking lot lights at the same time it considered that of the
field lights
Petitioners do not prevail on their section 21166 subd b argument because
among other reasons they do not show such circumstances will require major revisions
in the environmental impact report
The proximity of the field lights and the lights for a new parking lot and whether
the adverse impacts of the lights for the two projects should be analyzed together was
raised as an issue in earlier proceedings This is not new information under section
21166 subd c The issue was raised in 2009 as a written objection to the MND AR
260 The issue was raised in the Carstens
61
Minteer August 31 2011 letter when the
Coastal Commission had under its consideration the LCP Amendment to permit field
lighting at MMHS AR1781
82 457 The issue was raised again in the Carol Gables
September 6 2011 letter submitted when the EIR for the Campus Improvement Project
was pending before the School District The Gables letter said CEQA prohibits public
agencies from subdividing a single project into smaller projects in order to avoid the
responsibility of considering the environmental impact of the project as a whole CEQA
Guidelines 15378 This DEIR does not analyze the cumulative impacts of the proposed
new 150 space parking lot along with the athletic field lighting and the significant and
adverse effects both of those proposals will have on the environment AR 3725 The
School District responded saying The District is not piecemealing the project The
13
night lighting of the athletic field is not part of the Proposed Project AR 3793
3794
No legal challenge was taken from this conclusion following the School District
s
certification of the EIR for the Campus Project
Petitioners therefore do not present any new information that was not available to
and therefore could not have been considered by the School District in its certification
of the EIR for the Campus Project The City
s Planning Commission when it considered
the Campus Project on March 18 2013 had before it that EIR and impliedly found that
no further environmental review relating to the field lights was required for its approval
of the Campus Project including its component for safety
security lights for the new
parking lot That determination enjoys a presumptionand
of validity
A court must resolve
decision A Local
reasonable doubts in favor of the
s finding
agency
Regional
Monitor ALARN v City ofLos Angeles 1993 12 Cal
4th 1773 1793
App
considering whether an update letter relating to traffic impacts submitted to a planning
commission hearing officer was new information under section 21166
Considering the argument in its factual context moreover petitioners do not show
a change in circumstances that would require major revisions in the environmental
impact report Petitioners suggest that if the City Council had considered the parking
lot lights it would have been required to restrict further the number of hours the field
lights could be used Their argument is that because the hours of operation for the
parking lot lights were authorized under a Statement of Overriding Considerations any
mitigation by default would have been imposed on the hours of operation allowed for
the field lights were the two projects considered together The nighttime illumination
caused by the field lights had already been considered by the City Council and the
Coastal Commission and curtailed to 45 nights up to 7
30 p
m and 16 nights up to
10
30 p
m per year Under that circumstance any further limitation of the hours of
operation of the field lights as a remedy to mitigate the unavoidable impacts of the
parking lot lights is within the discretion of the Planning Commission No further
environmental study is needed as the options available to mitigate nighttime illumination
were clearly understood from the information already available in the MND for the field
8 Petitioners counsel argued that conclusion at the court hearing on October 17
2014 as follows Now there is an effective remedy for the petitioners in this case
because the conditions of approval for the campus improvement project actually tie the
number of nights that the parking lot is lit to the number of nights that the football field
is lit
And the only way to address the relationship between the lights of the football
field and the impact for the lights of the parking lot is by adjusting the conditions of
approval of the football field lights Trans pp 49
50
14
lights and the EIR for the Campus Project The City
s implied conclusion that a further
study of nighttime illumination was not required is clearly supported by substantial
evidence
The City did not abuse its discretion in approving the field lights on June 25
2012 No further environmental study was required for the Field Lights Project under
Public Resources Code section 21166
PREPARATION OF JUDGMENT
The court shall grant judgment for respondents City and City Council on the
Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by petitioners Malibu Community Alliance Cami
Winikoff and Stephen Uhring
The court shall grant judgment for respondents City and City Council on the
Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by petitioners Malibu Community Preservation
Alliance and Malibu Township Council Inc
Respondents counsel is to prepare serve and lodge a form of Judgment that is
consistent with the court
s Statement of Decision within five court days Petitioners shall
have ten days to serve and file objections to the proposed Judgement
Once a Judgment is entered the parties are directed to retrieve and retain in their
offices for any postjudgment proceeding the administrative record and any courtesy
copy pleading binders that they have provided to the court
The Clerk is directed to serve this STATEMENT OF DECISION ON PETITION
FOR WRIT OF MANDATE on the parties by U
S Mail this date
Dated February 13 2015
RICHARD L FRUIN JR
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
15