SPRAWLDEF v. Dept. of Resources Recycling and Recovery

Filed 3/26/19; Modified and Certified for Pub. 4/22/19 (order attached)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

SUSTAINABILITY, PARKS, RECYCLING AND C066582 WILDLIFE DEFENSE FUND (SPRAWLDEF), Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34200980000301) v.

DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY et al., Defendants and Respondents;

WASTE CONNECTIONS, INC., et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

This case involves issuance of a revised permit for the Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County, pursuant to the California Integrated Waste Management Act (the Waste Management Act; Pub. Resources Code, § 40000 et seq.).1 Appellant Sustainability, Parks, Recycling and Wildlife Defense Fund (SPRAWLDEF) contends the revised

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Public Resources Code in effect at the time of the relevant events, except where otherwise noted.

1

permit is improper because it allows expanded operations not in conformance with the “countywide siting element” (§§ 41700-41701; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 18755 et seq.)2 of Solano County’s countywide integrated waste management plan (CIWMP). (§§ 41750-41750.1 [elements to be included in CIWMP].) SPRAWLDEF appeals from the trial court’s denial of its petition for a writ of administrative mandamus (§ 45042; Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5), which was filed against: (1) the County Department of Resource Management as the local enforcement agency (LEA) (§§ 40130, 43200) for integrated waste management, which granted the revised permit and rejected SPRAWLDEF’s administrative challenge to the revised permit; (2) the former California Integrated Waste Management Board (the Board), which has since been replaced by the California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (DRRR),3 which declined to entertain an administrative appeal (§ 45031),4 on the grounds that (a) SPRAWLDEF failed to exhaust administrative remedies by failing to assert the conformance issue at the County level, and (b) that the conformance argument lacked merit because the only statutory requirement for expansion is in section 50001,

2 “Regulations” references are to title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in effect at the time of the events discussed herein. 3 Though DRRR replaced the Board in 2009 (§§ 40400-40401), some statutes continue to use the term “Board.” The Legislature did not amend the statutes but instead stated in section 40400 that, “[a]ny reference in any law or regulation to [the Board] shall hereafter apply to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. . . .” We shall use the term “Board” because that was the entity which handled this case. 4 Section 45031 states: “Within 30 days from the date that an appeal is filed with the [B]oard, the [B]oard may do any of the following: [¶] (a) Determine not to hear the appeal if the appellant fails to raise substantial issues. [¶] (b) Determine not to hear the appeal if the appellant failed to participate in the administrative hearing [without good cause]. . . . [¶] (c) Determine to accept the appeal and to decide the matter on the basis of the record before the hearing panel, or based on written arguments submitted by the parties, or both. [¶] (d) Determine to accept the appeal and hold a hearing, within 60 days, unless all parties stipulate to extending the hearing date.”