The Inland Oversight Committee v. City of Covina CA2/4

Filed 8/16/16 The Inland Oversight Committee v. City of Covina CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

THE INLAND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, B268735

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS152268) v.

CITY OF COVINA,

Defendant and Respondent;

SAGE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP et al.,

Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard L. Fruin, Judge. Reversed. Briggs Law Corporation, Cory J. Briggs and Anthony N. Kim for Plaintiff and Appellant. Richards, Watson & Gershon and Ginetta L. Giovinco for Defendant and Respondent. Feldman/Berman/Schwartz and Craig S. Berman for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

In this action under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. (CEQA)), plaintiff, The Inland Oversight Committee, appeals from the judgment (order) of dismissal based on the sustaining of a demurrer. In light of our determination that plaintiff is entitled to proceed under the public interest litigation exception to the personal interest requirement, we reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant, the City of Covina (City), owns the subject property at 633-635 South Citrus Avenue in that city. Citrus Avenue has a Metrolink stop and intersects with the 10 and 210 freeways. In 2014, Covina MJL, LLC1 (Covina MJL) and its affiliate Sage Automotive Group (Sage) expressed interest in renovating and leasing the property for a new automobile dealership business, Sage Covina Chevrolet. At the time, the existing structure on the property, formerly used by Enterprise Rent-A-Car, was in need of renovation. Covina MJL and Sage sought financial assistance from City to build an approximately 8,000 square-foot addition.2 After completing its initial CEQA study, City concluded that although the proposed project would have “potentially significant impacts related to Aesthetic Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise,” these impacts could be mitigated to “less than significant levels.” It prepared a mitigated negative declaration under CEQA, developed a mitigation monitoring program for the proposed project, and distributed the mitigated negative declaration for public comment. During the comment period, plaintiff objected that no consideration had been given to the