California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division
Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, No. BS144965 Allan J. Goodman,
Judge
Buchalter Nemer PC, and Robert M. Dato, for Plaintiffs and
Appellants.
The
Sohagi Law Group, PLC, Margaret M. Sohagi, and R. Tyson
Sohagi, for Defendants and Respondents City of Redondo Beach
et al.
Tucker
Ellis LLP, Carmen A. Trutanich, Matthew I. Kaplan, and
Rebecca A. Lefler, for Real Parties in Interest and
Respondents Redondo Auto Spa et al.
Brian
P. Barrow, for Amicus Curiae Building a Better Redondo, Inc.
PERREN, J.
Respondent
City of Redondo Beach (City) approved a conditional use
permit (CUP) for construction of a combination car wash and
coffee shop on a vacant lot adjacent to homes owned by
appellants Steven Walters, Mark Kleiman, Rick Son, Krishna
Gorripati and John Moore. In issuing the permit, the City
found the project was categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.;
CEQA)[1] because it involves the development of
“new, small facilities or structures [and] installation
of small new equipment and facilities in small
structures.” (Guidelines, § 15303.)
Appellants
filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the
City’s decision. The trial court denied the petition,
agreeing with the City that the project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Guidelines section 15303, subdivision
(c) and that no exception to the exemption applies. We
affirm.
FACTS
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Respondents
and real parties in interest Redondo Auto Spa and Chris
McKenna (collectively “Auto Spa”) propose to
build a full-service car wash and small coffee shop on a 25,
000 square-foot lot at the northwest corner of Torrance
Boulevard and South Irena Avenue in Redondo Beach. The
property is located within a commercial (C-3) zone. The
structure will consist of a 90-foot car wash tunnel and
attached coffee shop that together will total 4, 080 square
feet. The remainder of the site will include 17 parking
spaces for employees and coffee shop patrons, an area for
drying cars, landscaping and a water feature. Entry to the
car wash is from the residential street, just beyond the
corner of the major street.
In
1965, the City approved a CUP for a car wash and snack bar at
the same location. That car wash, which occupied 5, 138
square feet of the parcel, operated until approximately June
2001. The property fell into disrepair. About five years
later, appellants’ homes on the abutting property lines
were constructed. In 2012, the property was found to be a
blight on the area and the City prosecuted the owner for
nuisance and other charges. Auto Spa responded by demolishing
the remaining structure and proposing to rebuild the car wash
as an “express wash” model, in which patrons
would vacuum their own cars and drive through the car wash
tunnel. The City’s Planning Commission (Commission) did
not approve the plan. Among other things, it determined that
the proposed use would have an adverse impact on abutting
properties and that the site was not adequate in size and
shape to accommodate the express wash project. Rather than
appeal that decision, Auto Spa proposed a self-described
“high end, ” full-service car wash and coffee
shop.
The
Commission granted a CUP for the full-service car wash and
found that it was categorically exempt from CEQA under
Guidelines section 15303, subdivision (c). The notice of
exemption states that “[t]he project consists of the
construction of a new car wash facility and coffee shop of 4,
080-square feet in size on commercially zoned property. As
such, it is consistent with the classes of projects described
in CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(c) that states, in part,
that commercial buildings not exceeding 10, 000 square feet
in floor area on sites zoned for such use if not involving
the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where
all necessary public services and facilities are available
and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive are
considered exempt from further CEQA review. No potentially
significant environmental impacts will result from the
project.”
The
Commission added certain restrictions to the project,
requiring that the equipment not exceed the Redondo Beach
Municipal Code (Municipal Code) noise limit, that no
detailing equipment be used that is audible or discernable at
the property line from the other on-site equipment, and that
operating hours be limited. The Commission further required
that the number of vehicles washed be limited to 20 vehicles
per hour and to no more than 200 vehicles per day (referred
to as Condition 24). Coffee shop hours were set at 7:00 a.m.
to 8:00 p.m. seven days a week. Walters and Kleiman appealed
the decision to the City Council.
Auto
Spa provided a traffic study, conducted by Gibson
Transportation Consulting (Gibson), which concluded that the
proposed car wash would not change the level of service at
the intersection from its present “A” status,
even at peak operating times. It also commissioned a noise
study by Davy & Associates (Davy), which determined that
the only significant noise source would be the blower/dryer
systems inside the car wash tunnel. Davy concluded that noise
would largely be contained by the design and materials to be
used in constructing the facility.
Before
the hearing on the appeal, Auto Spa requested removal of
Condition 24. It claimed that 200 cars per day would not be
profitable for the car wash. The City Council approved the
project subject to certain conditions, including compliance
with the City’s noise ordinance (Condition 20), a
vehicle limit of 10, 000 cars per month and limitations on
the car wash’s operating hours.[2] Condition 20
requires that compliance with the noise standards be tested
and documented prior to the final inspection and opening of
the car wash.
With
these and other conditions in place, the City Council
determined (1) the building site is adequate in size to
accommodate the proposed use; (2) the proposed use has
adequate street access and will not have a significant impact
on traffic; (3) the proposed use will have no adverse effect
on abutting properties; (4) the noise that will be generated
by the car wash blowers and vacuum drops does not exceed the
permitted interior and exterior limits; (5) the project is
exempt from CEQA under Guidelines section 15303, subdivision
(c); and (6) the project will not have a significant effect
on the environment.
Appellants
filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the CEQA
exemption and the City’s issuance of a CUP. After
briefing and a hearing, the trial court denied the writ
petition, concluding that the project is categorically exempt
under Guidelines section 15303, subdivision (c), and that the
CUP was properly issued. This appeal followed.[3]
DISCUSSION
A.
CEQA Overview
“CEQA
and its implementing administrative regulations
[Guidelines]... establish a three-tier process to ensure that
public agencies inform their decisions with environmental
considerations. [Citation.] The first tier is jurisdictional,
requiring that an agency conduct a preliminary review to
determine whether an activity is subject to CEQA.”
(Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use
Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 379-380, fn. omitted
(Muzzy Ranch).) “CEQA applies if the activity
is a ‘project’ under the statutory definition,
unless the project is exempt. [Citations.]” (San
Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education
v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139
Cal.App.4th 1356, 1373.)
“The
second tier concerns exemptions from CEQA review, ”
which include “categorical exemptions or ‘classes
of projects’ that the... agency has determined to be
exempt per se because they do not have a significant effect
on the environment. [¶]... [¶] If a public agency
properly finds that a project is exempt from CEQA, no further
environmental review is necessary. [Citation.] The agency
need only prepare and file a notice of exemption [citations],
citing the relevant statute or section of the CEQA Guidelines
and including a brief statement of reasons to support the
finding of exemption [citation].” (Muzzy
Ranch, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 380.) The
“third tier applies if the agency determines
substantial evidence exists that an aspect of the project may
cause a significant effect on the environment.”
(Id. at p. 381.)
Here,
it is undisputed that the proposed car wash qualifies as a
“project” under CEQA. The issues on appeal
concern the second tier of the CEQA analysis, i.e., whether
the City erred in finding that the car wash project is
categorically exempt from CEQA and that there are no unusual
circumstances creating a reasonable possibility the activity
will have a significant effect on the environment. (See
Guidelines, §§ 15303, subd. (c), 15300.2, subd.
(c).)
“In
considering a petition for writ of mandate in a CEQA case,
‘[o]ur task on appeal is “the same as the trial
court’s.” [Citation.] Thus, we conduct our review
independent of the trial court’s findings.’
[Citation.] Accordingly, we examine the City’s
decision, not the trial court’s.”
(Banker’s Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community
Preservation Group v. City of San Diego (2006) 139
Cal.App.4th 249, 257.)
B.
Application of ...