Citizens for a Better Eureka v. City of Eureka

Filed 5/14/25; Certified for Publication 6/11/25 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE CITIZENS FOR A BETTER EUREKA, Plaintiff and Appellant, A170214 v. (Humboldt County CITY OF EUREKA et al., Super. Ct. No. CV2300712) Defendants and Respondents; WIYOT TRIBE, Real Party in Interest. Citizens for a Better Eureka (CBE) filed a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.1; CEQA) challenging an action by the City of Eureka (the City) and the City of Eureka City Council (the City Council) (collectively, respondents) that authorized the reduction or removal of a City-owned parking lot for redevelopment into affordable housing based on a CEQA exemption. 1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Public Resources Code. 1  The specially appearing Wiyot Tribe (the Tribe), which was selected as the developer for the affordable housing redevelopment but was not named in the writ petition, moved to dismiss the petition on the basis that it was a necessary and indispensable party to the proceeding. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the action. On appeal, CBE avers the Tribe was neither a necessary nor indispensable party to the action and therefore dismissal was not warranted. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Unless otherwise noted, all dates refer to 2023. The April Resolution On April 4, the City Council held a public hearing on its plan to develop affordable housing on a City-owned public parking lot at the corner of 5th and D streets in downtown Eureka (the parking lot). After the hearing, the City Council adopted a resolution (the April resolution) entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUREKA FINDING THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CLASS 12 SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY EXEMPTION FROM CEQA AND AUTHORIZING THE REDUCTION OR REMOVAL OF PUBLIC PARKING FROM THE PARKING LOT AT 5TH AND D STREETS (APN 001-103-003) TO FACILITATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS.” The resolution authorized “the reduction or removal of public parking at [the parking lot], to facilitate development of Affordable Housing Projects.” It found that “[t]he reduction or removal of parking to allow the sale or lease of the property is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines2 2 CEQA Guidelines, hereafter cited to as Guidelines, refers to a series of administrative regulations for the implementation of CEQA promulgated by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, codified at title 14, division 6, 2 Section 15312 (Class 12) Surplus Government Property Sales.” A staff report recommending approval of the April resolution stated that “[t]he decision to declare property surplus, and the subsequent lease or sale of surplus property[,] is a ‘project’ pursuant to [CEQA]” and set forth the City’s basis for claiming an exemption under Guidelines section 15312. That same day, the City Council authorized the release of a request for proposal (RFP) for affordable housing projects on the parking lot. CBE’s Petition for Writ of Mandate On May 5, CBE filed the petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief (the petition) at issue in this case, pursuant to sections 21168 and 21168.5, challenging the adoption of the April resolution on the basis that it violated CEQA. The petition named the City, the City Council, and Does 1 to 10 as respondents. In the petition, CBE alleged the April resolution unlawfully claimed a Class 12 CEQA exemption for “sales of surplus government property” (Guidelines, § 15312) by improperly “ ‘piecemealing’ ” the project and focusing on the sale of the parking lot without considering the future use of the land. Instead, the petition asserted, “ ‘the whole of [the] action’ that has ‘a potential for resulting’ in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment is not merely the surplus-sale [sic] of the lot, but the redevelopment of the lot into affordable housing.” The petition sought alternative and peremptory writs of mandate that generally sought to “vacate and set aside” the redevelopment project, declaratory and injunctive relief, and an order requiring respondents to rescind their approval of the project. chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations. (Guidelines, § 15000; Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1171, 1184 & fn. 2 (Union).)