The Salvation Army v. City of Bell CA2/1 ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Filed 6/15/23 The Salvation Army v. City of Bell CA2/1
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE
    THE SALVATION ARMY et al.,                                           B316271
    Plaintiffs and Respondents,                                (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. 19STCP00693)
    v.
    CITY OF BELL,
    Defendant and Appellant;
    CEMEX CONSTRUCTION
    MATERIALS PACIFIC, LLC et al.,
    Real Parties in Interest and
    Appellants.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
    Los Angeles County, Joel L. Lofton, Judge. Affirmed in part,
    reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
    Aleshire & Wynder, David J. Aleshire and June S. Ailin for
    Defendant and Appellant City of Bell.
    Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, Kerry Shapiro and
    Matthew D. Hinks for Real Party in Interest and Appellant
    CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC.
    Rutan & Tucker, John A. Ramirez and Peter J. Howell for
    Real Party in Interest and Appellant PI Bell, LLC.
    Natural Resources Defense Council, David Pettit, Kimberly
    E. Leefatt, Jaclyn H. Prange, and Cecilia Segal for Plaintiffs and
    Respondents.
    ____________________________
    In 2013, the City of Bell (City) sold four parcels of real
    property located in the City to PI Bell, LLC (PI Bell). As part of
    the sale transaction, the City and PI Bell executed an agreement
    to facilitate the parcels’ development (Development Agreement or
    Agreement). The City also certified an Environmental Impact
    Report (EIR) in connection with the Agreement.
    PI Bell leased one of the parcels to a third party, which in
    turn subleased that parcel to CEMEX Construction Materials
    Pacific, LLC (CEMEX).1 In 2018, CEMEX submitted a proposal
    to the Design Review Board (DRB) created by the Agreement to
    develop a gravel transfer and storage facility on the parcel.2
    The DRB determined that the CEMEX project
    substantially conformed to the Development Agreement, and
    approved CEMEX’s application subject to certain conditions. The
    1 We refer to CEMEX, PI Bell, and the City collectively as
    “appellants.”
    2  As a shorthand, we refer to CEMEX’s proposal for the
    parcel in question as the “CEMEX project,” which is the
    designation utilized by the trial court during the proceedings
    below.
    2
    DRB also found that its approval fell within the ministerial
    exemption to the requirements of the California Environmental
    Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.).
    Additionally, the DRB determined that even if its approval were
    subject to CEQA, no additional environmental review would be
    required. Specifically, the DRB determined that the CEMEX
    project would not result in new significant environmental
    impacts or a substantial increase in impacts identified in the
    EIR.
    The Salvation Army (Salvation Army); East Yard
    Communities for Environmental Justice (East Yard); Grow Good,
    Inc. (Grow Good); and Shelter Partnership (collectively,
    respondents) filed a petition for writ of mandate, challenging the
    DRB’s substantial conformity determination, the DRB’s
    invocation of the ministerial exemption, and the DRB’s finding
    that no further environmental review was required. Appellants
    seek review of the trial court’s decision granting respondents’
    petition.
    We affirm the trial court’s decision to set aside the DRB’s
    substantial conformity determination, which is the relief the
    court granted on respondents’ first cause of action for
    administrative mandamus. Notwithstanding appellants’
    argument to the contrary, the Development Agreement does not
    authorize CEMEX’s use of a roofless gravel storage building on
    the parcel without further proceedings. The Agreement
    incorporates by reference zoning code provisions that require
    gravel sales and storage operations to be conducted in a
    completely enclosed building unless the City’s Planning
    Commission and the City Council determine that such uses are
    customarily conducted in the open. Appellants identified no
    3
    evidence that the Planning Commission and the City Council
    made such a determination, and they conceded at oral argument
    that there was no such determination. Appellants also fail to
    demonstrate that CEMEX’s current use of the property falls
    within other authorized uses in the Development Agreement, or
    that the Agreement authorized the DRB to cure the roofless
    gravel storage building’s departure from the City’s Municipal
    Code.
    In their briefing, appellants do not contest respondents’
    assertion that we need not reach appellants’ challenges to the
    trial court’s disposition of the CEQA causes of action if we affirm
    the judgment on the first cause of action. We agree with
    respondents because we do not know what steps CEMEX will
    undertake to address our invalidation under the Development
    Agreement of CEMEX’s current use of the parcel or what actions
    City officials would undertake in response to CEMEX’s future
    actions. To address respondents’ CEQA causes of action as to
    such a noncompliant and invalidated development project would
    be rendering an advisory opinion as to moot issues. For that
    reason, the current record does not allow us to conclude that
    failing to address the CEQA issues now would have a tangible
    impact on the parties’ rights and obligations under the statute.
    Similarly, we conclude our affirmance of the judgment on
    the first cause of action also moots the judgment on the CEQA
    causes of action. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment on the
    CEQA claims, and remand with directions to dismiss those
    portions of the action as moot. In doing so, we express no opinion
    on whether the trial court’s resolution of the CEQA issues was
    erroneous.
    4
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3
    We summarize only those facts pertinent to our disposition
    of this appeal.
    1.    The City’s approval of the Bell Business Center
    project
    This case involves four parcels of land in the City, which
    the parties refer to as Parcels A, F, G, and H. In 2013, the City
    sold the four parcels to PI Bell, entered into the Development
    Agreement with that entity, and issued an ordinance adopting
    the Agreement. The Agreement identifies the development of the
    four parcels as the Bell Business Center project. Also in 2013,
    3   We derive our Factual and Procedural Background in
    part from undisputed aspects of the trial court’s ruling on
    respondents’ writ petition, admissions made by the parties in
    their filings, and assertions respondents raise in their brief to
    which appellants do not respond in their reply. (See Baxter v.
    State Teachers’ Retirement System (2017) 
    18 Cal.App.5th 340
    ,
    349, fn. 2 [utilizing the summary of facts provided in the trial
    court’s ruling]; Applicable Law, post [noting that the trial court’s
    orders and judgments are presumed correct]; Artal v. Allen (2003)
    
    111 Cal.App.4th 273
    , 275, fn. 2 (Artal) [“ ‘[B]riefs and
    argument . . . are reliable indications of a party’s position on the
    facts as well as the law, and a reviewing court may make use of
    statements therein as admissions against the party.’ ”]; Rudick v.
    State Bd. of Optometry (2019) 
    41 Cal.App.5th 77
    , 89–90 (Rudick)
    [concluding that the appellants made an implicit concession by
    “failing to respond in their reply brief to the [respondent’s]
    argument on th[at] point”]; Tiburon Open Space Committee v.
    County of Marin (2022) 
    78 Cal.App.5th 700
    , 709–710, 757
    [same].)
    5
    the City certified the final EIR for the Bell Business Center
    project.
    The four parcels are located in the CM (Commercial
    Manufacturing) zone. Notwithstanding that zoning designation,
    the Development Agreement’s list of “Eligible Uses” authorizes
    not only “[a]ny use currently permitted in the . . . CM
    (Commercial Manufacturing) zoning district,” but also, inter alia,
    “[a]ny use currently permitted in the M (Manufacturing) . . .
    zoning district”; “Warehousing”; “Distribution”; “Logistics”;
    “Loading and Unloading of Parcels and Freight”; “Truck
    terminal”; “Sorting, loading and unloading of Parcels and
    Freight”; “Parcel and freight forwarding”; “Retail order
    fulfillment (online or catalog services)”; “General office uses”;
    “Onsite railroad service and transfer facility”; “Outdoor
    advertising media”; and “Telecommunications facilities (including
    monopoles and towers).” Section 4.3 of the Agreement provides
    in pertinent part: “[T]his Agreement and its Exhibits . . . shall
    prevail over any other Existing Land Use Regulations.”4
    The Development Agreement also created the DRB, which
    is a “four member review board consisting of the Community
    Development Director, City Engineer, one member of the
    Planning Commission and one member of the City Council . . . .”
    As we explain later in this opinion, future development of the
    parcels is conditioned on the DRB’s determination that the
    proposal is “based on the design requirements” of certain
    provisions of the Agreement. (See Discussion, part A.1, post.)
    4 As pertinent here, “Existing Land Use Regulations” are
    defined as “actions of the City” (e.g., ordinances) applicable to the
    four parcels that were “in effect on the date the City Council
    approve[d] th[e] Agreement.”
    6
    2.    The development of Parcels F, G, and H, the initial
    proposal for the CEMEX project, and the prior
    litigation
    Following execution of the Development Agreement,
    Parcels F, G, and H were developed into distribution centers.
    PI Bell leased Parcel A to BNSF, which in turn subleased it to
    CEMEX.5
    In 2016, CEMEX submitted its initial proposal to develop
    an aggregate material storage facility on Parcel A. Under the
    initial proposal for the CEMEX project, gravel would be brought
    to the facility by railroad service, stored for resale, and
    subsequently transported for delivery to the local marketplace by
    truck. At the time CEMEX submitted its initial proposal,
    Parcel A was being used to store tractor trailers.
    It is undisputed that City officials approved the initial
    proposal for the CEMEX project without following the procedures
    required by the Development Agreement. Specifically, appellants
    admit “[t]he City’s then Community Development Director had
    formed an ad-hoc committee to review CEMEX’s application,
    rather than convening the [DRB].” CEMEX thereafter obtained
    building permits and began construction in October 2017.
    In 2018, East Yard, a nonprofit corporation that is devoted
    to “protect[ing] th[e] community and nearby residents from the
    harmful air pollution generated by industrial and goods
    movement activities,” filed suit challenging the initial approval of
    the CEMEX project. The lawsuit alleged that the initial version
    of the CEMEX project was not a permitted use on Parcel A under
    the Development Agreement and had environmental impacts
    5   BNSF is not a party to this appeal.
    7
    that were not studied in the 2013 EIR. The City, PI Bell, and
    CEMEX entered into a settlement agreement that provided for,
    among other things, DRB review of CEMEX’s proposal,
    modifications to the CEMEX project designed to minimize air
    quality impacts of the project, and a promise to adhere to the
    transportation mitigation measures from the 2013 EIR.
    East Yard entered into a stipulation to dismiss its suit.
    The stipulation allowed East Yard to pursue its challenge to the
    CEMEX project if East Yard was not satisfied with the outcome
    of the DRB’s forthcoming review.
    3.    The DRB’s approval of the CEMEX project, the Notice
    of Exemption, and CEMEX’s operation of the facility
    In late 2018, CEMEX submitted a revised application for
    the CEMEX project to the DRB. The DRB held a public hearing
    on January 31, 2019. Later that day, the DRB issued a
    resolution approving CEMEX’s application. The DRB found
    “substantial conformity with the Development Agreement . . . and
    the EIR . . . .” At the end of the “Substantial Compliance” section
    of the resolution, the DRB stated, “To the extent any of the
    foregoing findings were overturned, in the alternative, any
    deviations by the [CEMEX p]roject are found to be minor within
    the meaning of Section 5D of Exhibit C” of the Development
    Agreement. (Boldface omitted.)
    The DRB also imposed certain conditions of approval, and
    stated that “[p]ursuant to the Development Agreement . . .
    conditions may be added to assure that the Project’s construction
    and operations are consistent with the Development Agreement
    and EIR and do not adversely impact surrounding properties.”
    One of those conditions of approval required CEMEX to
    “maintain a complaint hotline on a 24/7 status[,] . . . post a
    8
    publicly visible sign with the 24/7 telephone number and contact
    person’s name where complaints can be received[,] . . . [and]
    maintain a written log of all complaints and actions taken in
    connection with the complaints and . . . inform complainants of
    the actions taken.”
    In the “CEQA Conclusions” section of the resolution, the
    DRB found that “[d]esign or aesthetic review of a project is not a
    decision that is subject to CEQA.” (Boldface & underscoring
    omitted from the first quotation.) The DRB further found that
    “CEMEX’s use of Parcel A does not result in new significant
    environmental impacts, a substantial increase in impacts
    identified in the Development Agreement EIR, or require
    substantially different mitigation measures than those
    established for purposes of the Development Agreement.”
    On February 5, 2019, the City filed a Notice of Exemption
    for the DRB’s approval of the revised application for the CEMEX
    project.6 In the Notice of Exemption, the City claimed that the
    DRB’s “decisions are exempt from CEQA” because they are
    “Ministerial.” Specifically, the City claimed the DRB’s “authority
    is limited” under the Development Agreement “to determining
    6   The Notice of Exemption identifies “Planning
    Commission, City of Bell” as the “Public Agency Approving
    Project.” (Boldface omitted.) This is an error. The remainder of
    the Notice of Exemption indicates the document concerns the
    DRB’s approval of the “CEMEX aggregate transfer/storage
    facility at the Bell Business Center.” Appellants concede that
    this Notice of Exemption asserts that “the Board’s approval of the
    CEMEX construction and design plans was exempt from
    CEQA . . . .” (Italics added.) (See Artal, supra, 111 Cal.App.4th
    at p. 275, fn. 2 [holding that an assertion in a brief may be
    construed as an admission against the party making it].)
    9
    that development . . . is based on the design requirements set
    forth in the Development Agreement, conditions of approval of
    the Development Agreement and the Environmental Impact
    Report . . . .” The City further remarked that the DRB “does not
    have the discretion to establish conditions that alleviate adverse
    environmental impacts.”
    Construction on the CEMEX project was completed in
    May 2019, and the facility is currently operational.
    4.    Respondents’ initiation of the instant proceedings,
    the trial court’s ruling and judgment, and
    appellants’ notices of appeal
    On March 7, 2019, respondents commenced the instant
    proceedings against appellants. Before proceeding further, we
    note that Salvation Army and Shelter Partnership are nonprofit
    corporations that operate on parcels located near Parcel A.
    Salvation Army offers interim shelter services and supportive
    services for homeless individuals. Shelter Partnership operates a
    warehouse that distributes donated surplus goods to agencies
    within Los Angeles County. Grow Good is a nonprofit
    corporation that manages a community garden on land leased
    from Salvation Army.
    Respondents’ operative first amended verified petition for
    writ of mandate alleges three causes of action: (1) a mandamus
    cause of action challenging the DRB’s finding that the CEMEX
    project was in substantial conformity with the Development
    Agreement; (2) a cause of action alleging that CEQA required the
    preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR for the CEMEX
    project in part because the project “was not analyzed in the 2013
    EIR”; and (3) a cause of action alleging that the “Notice of
    Exemption . . . is invalid because [DRB] review of the [CEMEX
    10
    p]roject was a discretionary decision and its approval . . . was
    subject to CEQA.”
    In their prayer for relief, respondents sought, among other
    things, “a writ of mandate . . . commanding [the City] to set aside
    the January 31, 2019 finding of the [DRB] . . . and requiring [the
    City] to set aside its approval of the [CEMEX p]roject”; “a writ of
    mandate . . . commanding [the City] to conduct a subsequent or
    supplemental CEQA analysis of the [CEMEX p]roject, and to set
    aside its approval of the [CEMEX p]roject until such analysis is
    final”; and “[f]or temporary, preliminary and permanent
    injunctive relief halting . . . the use of K Street by CEMEX for
    any commercial purposes . . . .”7
    Upon hearing respondents’ petition, the trial court issued
    a ruling granting the petition. Regarding respondents’ first cause
    of action for writ of mandamus, the trial court concluded, “The
    [DRB]’s determination that the CEMEX project is in substantial
    conformance with the 2013 Development Agreement is not
    supported by substantial evidence.”
    Concerning respondents’ CEQA causes of action, the trial
    court concluded “substantial evidence does not support a finding
    that the DRB’s actions were ministerial” because “the DRB had
    the discretion[,] and indeed did implement, conditions in order to
    shape the project to respond to potential environmental concerns
    associated with the CEMEX Project.” The court further
    concluded the DRB erred in determining that “the CEMEX
    Project does not require subsequent or supplemental CEQA
    review.” The court reasoned that because the EIR for the Bell
    7K Street is “a utility street adjacent to Salvation Army
    and Grow Good.”
    11
    Business Center project “was prepared to analyze whether or not
    the proposed ‘industrial/warehouse[s] and ancillary office
    space[s]’ of [that project] would cause any potential
    environmental impacts,” “the EIR could not, and did not,
    contemplate the potential environmental impacts of” CEMEX’s
    “open-air gravel storage, sale, and distribution facility.” The
    court also rejected appellants’ argument that CEQA’s 30-day
    statute of limitations precluded respondents from obtaining relief
    under that statute.
    The trial court also found that respondents’ “request that
    the Court prohibit CEMEX from operating on K Street” was not
    “ripe for review” because all parties “have stipulated that
    CEMEX does not use K Street to access the facility,” and “all
    parties agree that CEMEX makes use of Rickenbacker Road to
    access the CEMEX facility.”8
    The trial court entered judgment for respondents in
    accordance with its ruling on their petition. As to respondents’
    first cause of action for mandamus relief, the court issued a writ
    requiring the City to set aside the DRB’s finding that the CEMEX
    project was in substantial conformity with the applicable
    provisions of the Development Agreement. For the second and
    third causes of action under CEQA, the court issued a writ
    requiring the City to set aside the Notice of Exemption for the
    CEMEX project and “[t]ake such additional steps under CEQA as
    [the City] deems proper . . . .” Appellants timely appealed the
    judgment.
    8 The parties agree that Parcel A does not benefit from an
    easement permitting legal access via Rickenbacker Road. This
    undisputed fact has no bearing on our disposition of the instant
    appeal.
    12
    APPLICABLE LAW
    “In general, where [an] administrative agency’s decision is
    ‘quasi-adjudicative’ in nature,” that is, “ ‘ “an . . . act involv[ing]
    the actual application of . . . a rule to a specific set of existing
    facts[,]” ’ ” “ ‘review . . . is by administrative mandamus’ ” under
    Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.9 (See Stanford Vina
    Ranch Irrigation Co. v. State of California (2020) 
    50 Cal.App.5th 976
    , 995–996.) That statute authorizes a trial court to “set aside
    [an] order or decision” of the agency. (See Code Civ. Proc.,
    § 1094.5, subd. (f).) “When the trial court reviews the decision of
    an administrative body pursuant to section 1094.5, the inquiry
    ‘shall extend to the questions whether the respondent has
    proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; whether there
    was a fair trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of
    discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent
    has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or
    decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not
    supported by the evidence.’ [Citation.]” (County of Fresno v.
    Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. (2020) 
    51 Cal.App.5th 282
    , 288
    (Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Assn.), quoting § 1094.5, subd. (b).)
    In administrative mandamus cases, “[t]he appellate court
    applies substantial evidence review” to the agency’s decision.
    (Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Assn., supra, 51 Cal.App.5th at p. 288.)
    9  Although respondents styled their first cause of action for
    mandamus relief as a claim arising under Code of Civil Procedure
    section 1085, they maintain in their brief that Code of Civil
    Procedure section 1094.5 governs this cause of action. By failing
    to contest this assertion in appellants’ reply brief, appellants
    tacitly concede that respondents are correct on this point. (See
    Rudick, supra, 41 Cal.App.5th at pp. 89–90.)
    13
    Under that standard, the appellate court “ ‘ “reviews the
    administrative record to determine whether the agency’s findings
    were supported by substantial evidence, resolving all conflicts in
    the evidence and drawing all inferences in support of them.” ’[10]
    [Citation.] ‘If the administrative findings are supported by
    substantial evidence, the next question is one of law—whether
    those findings support the agency’s legal conclusions or its
    ultimate determination.’ [Citation.]” (Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s
    Assn., at p. 288.)
    “Matters presenting pure questions of law . . . are subject to
    de novo review.” (Shewry v. Begil (2005) 
    128 Cal.App.4th 639
    ,
    642.) Such matters include “[t]he interpretation of a regulation
    or a statute” (see Family Health Centers of San Diego v. State
    Dept. of Health Care Services (2021) 
    71 Cal.App.5th 88
    , 97
    (Family Health Centers of San Diego)), and the construction of
    “ ‘ “a contract or written document” ’ ” so long as “ ‘ “the
    interpretation [does not] turn[ ] upon the credibility of extrinsic
    evidence” ’ ” (see Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Assn., supra,
    51 Cal.App.5th at p. 288).
    10  Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (c)
    provides that, “in cases in which the [trial] court is authorized by
    law to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, abuse
    of discretion is established if the court determines that the
    findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence.” (Code
    Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (c).) In such cases, an appellate court’s
    “focus is on the trial court’s findings and whether there is
    substantial evidence to support those findings [citation] . . . .”
    (See Shenouda v. Veterinary Medical Bd. (2018) 
    27 Cal.App.5th 500
    , 512–513 (Shenouda).) Neither side asserts this standard of
    review applies to the instant appeal.
    14
    CEQA has “ ‘established a three-tiered process to ensure
    that public agencies inform their decisions with environmental
    considerations.’ [Citation.] A public agency must ‘conduct a
    preliminary review in order to determine whether CEQA applies
    to a proposed activity.’ [Citation.] At this stage, the agency must
    determine whether any of CEQA’s statutory exemptions apply.
    [Citation.] If the project is in an exempt category for which there
    is no exception, ‘ “no further environmental review is necessary.” ’
    [Citations.] [¶] If the project is not exempt from CEQA, the next
    step is to conduct an initial study. [Citation.] . . . [¶] . . . If [the
    initial study reveals that a] negative declaration is [not]
    appropriate, the final step is to prepare an EIR.” (See Parker
    Shattuck Neighbors v. Berkeley City Council (2013)
    
    222 Cal.App.4th 768
    , 776–777.)
    “ ‘An EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose
    it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to
    environmental changes before they have reached ecological points
    of no return.” [Citations.] . . . ’ [Citation.] The EIR ‘must include
    detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its
    preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the
    issues raised by the proposed project.’ [Citation.] [¶] Among
    other topics, an EIR must discuss significant environmental
    effects and unavoidable significant environmental effects . . . .
    For significant adverse effects, the EIR must describe feasible
    measures to minimize significant adverse effects . . . .” (Ocean
    Street Extension Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Cruz (2021)
    
    73 Cal.App.5th 985
    , 1003.)
    “The CEQA Guidelines are regulations adopted to
    implement CEQA, codified at California Code of Regulations,
    title 14, chapter 3, sections 15000–15387.” (Endangered Habitats
    15
    League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 
    131 Cal.App.4th 777
    , 792,
    fn. 11.) CEQA Guidelines section 15268, subdivision (a) states:
    “Ministerial projects are exempt from the requirements of CEQA.
    The determination of what is ‘ministerial’ can most appropriately
    be made by the particular public agency involved based upon its
    analysis of its own laws, and each public agency should make
    such determination either as a part of its implementing
    regulations or on a case-by-case basis.” (CEQA Guidelines,
    § 15268, subd. (a).) Conversely, “[w]here a project involves an
    approval that contains elements of both a ministerial action and
    a discretionary action, the project will be deemed to be
    discretionary and will be subject to the requirements of CEQA.”
    (Id., subd. (d).)
    Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines section 15162,
    subdivision (a) provides in pertinent part: “When an EIR has
    been certified . . . for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be
    prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on
    the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record,
    one or more of the following: [¶] . . . Substantial changes are
    proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
    previous EIR . . . due to the involvement of new significant
    environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
    previously identified significant effects . . . .” (CEQA Guidelines,
    § 15162, subd. (a)(1).) CEQA Guidelines section 15163,
    subdivision (a) states: “The lead or responsible agency may
    choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a
    subsequent EIR if: [¶] (1) Any of the conditions described in
    Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent
    EIR, and [¶] (2) Only minor additions or changes would be
    necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the
    16
    project in the changed situation.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15163,
    subd. (a).)
    “When an agency concludes an activity is exempt [from
    CEQA] based on factual considerations, a court reviews for
    substantial evidence. If the agency’s determination ‘involves
    pure questions of law, we review those questions de novo.’
    [Citation.]” (See Protecting Our Water & Environmental
    Resources v. County of Stanislaus (2020) 
    10 Cal.5th 479
    , 487,
    495.) “We review [an agency’s] conclusion that [a p]roject did not
    require any further environmental review” under the substantial
    evidence standard. (See Latinos Unidos de Napa v. City of Napa
    (2013) 
    221 Cal.App.4th 192
    , 195, 204.) In the CEQA context,
    substantial evidence “means enough relevant information and
    reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument
    can be made to support a conclusion, even though other
    conclusions might also be reached.” (See CEQA Guidelines,
    § 15384, subd. (a).) “Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated
    opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous or
    inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not
    contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the
    environment does not constitute substantial evidence,” whereas
    “[s]ubstantial evidence [does] include facts, reasonable
    assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported
    by facts.” (See id., subds. (a)–(b).)
    Additionally, the trial court’s rejection of appellants’ CEQA
    statute of limitations defense is reviewed de novo because the
    parties do not dispute the facts pertaining to that issue. (Ventura
    Foothill Neighbors v. County of Ventura (2014) 
    232 Cal.App.4th 429
    , 434 [“ ‘Where [as here] the pertinent facts are undisputed, it
    is a question of law whether a case is barred by the statute of
    17
    limitations. Accordingly, we apply the de novo standard of
    review [to this issue].’ ”].)
    Although deference to the trial court’s resolution of
    respondents’ mandamus and CEQA claims is not required, the
    court’s rulings are subject to the presumption of correctness
    applicable to all trial court judgments and orders.11 Accordingly,
    “ ‘all presumptions and intendments are in favor of supporting
    the judgment[,] . . . the appellant has the burden of showing
    reversible error, and in the absence of such showing, the
    judgment . . . will be affirmed.’ [Citations.]” (See Estate of Sapp
    (2019) 
    36 Cal.App.5th 86
    , 104.) Our review is thus “ ‘ “ limited to
    issues which have been adequately raised and supported in [the
    appellant’s opening] brief’ [citation,]” and “[i]ssues not raised in
    an appellant’s brief are deemed waived or abandoned.” ’
    [Citation.]” (See Golden Door Properties, LLC, supra,
    11    (See Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2009) 
    179 Cal.App.4th 933
    , 939 [“An appellate court’s task in the review of a mandate
    proceeding is essentially identical to that of the trial court.
    [Citation.] Accordingly, ‘we review the agency’s actions directly
    and are not bound by the trial court’s conclusions.’ ”]; Shenouda,
    supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at pp. 502–503, 512 [recognizing, in an
    administrative mandamus case, that “[b]ecause judgments of the
    trial court are presumed to be correct, the appellant bears the
    burden to affirmatively demonstrate error, and must show that
    the error was prejudicial”]; Golden Door Properties, LLC v.
    County of San Diego (2020) 
    50 Cal.App.5th 467
    , 554–555 (Golden
    Door Properties, LLC) [noting that “ ‘we [are] not . . . bound by,
    or . . . required to show any deference to, the trial court’s
    conclusion’ ” on a CEQA claim, but acknowledging that “even in a
    CEQA case, ‘ “[t]he most fundamental rule of appellate review is
    that an appealed judgment or order is presumed to be
    correct” ’ ”].)
    18
    50 Cal.App.5th at pp. 554–555.) “ ‘[T]o demonstrate error, an
    appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent
    argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the
    record[,]’ ” along with “ ‘ “any supporting authority.” ’ ” (See
    Hernandez v. First Student, Inc. (2019) 
    37 Cal.App.5th 270
    , 277;
    Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Torres Construction Corp.
    (2020) 
    57 Cal.App.5th 480
    , 492.)
    Lastly, “ ‘[i]f the decision of a lower court is correct on any
    theory of law applicable to the case, the judgment or order will be
    affirmed regardless of the correctness of the grounds upon which
    the lower court reached its conclusion.’ [Citation.]” (Estate of
    Sapp, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 104.)
    DISCUSSION
    Appellants contend we should reverse the judgment in
    favor of respondents on the first cause of action for writ of
    mandamus because “[t]he DRB’s finding that the [CEMEX
    project] substantially conforms to the Development Agreement is
    supported by substantial evidence.” (Boldface omitted.)
    Appellants further argue the trial court erred in granting
    relief on respondents’ CEQA claims, to wit, the second and third
    causes of action. First, appellants assert both causes of action
    fail because “[t]he City was not required to conduct further
    environmental review” before the DRB could “approve[ ] the
    design” of the CEMEX project. (Boldface omitted from first
    quotation.) In support of that position, appellants argue: (1) the
    DRB’s “design review does not implicate CEQA” because it was
    not “a ‘discretionary’ decision within the meaning” of the statute,
    and (2) even if CEQA applies, “the DRB’s determination that the
    [CEMEX project] would not cause impacts not already addressed
    in the 2013 EIR is supported by substantial evidence.”
    19
    Appellants further contend the second cause of action is barred
    by CEQA’s statute of limitations because that claim is actually an
    untimely challenge to the adequacy of the EIR that the City
    certified in 2013.
    For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court’s
    grant of administrative mandamus as to the first cause of action,
    which set aside the DRB’s determination that the CEMEX project
    substantially conforms to the Agreement. Furthermore, we agree
    with respondents that our affirmance of the trial court’s
    disposition of their first cause of action moots appellants’
    challenge to the remainder of the judgment. In particular, the
    Notice of Exemption has no legal significance because it pertains
    to the DRB’s invalid approval of the CEMEX project.
    Furthermore, the record before us does not disclose what, if any,
    steps CEMEX would take to cure the project’s nonconformance
    with the Development Agreement, and what actions City officials
    will undertake in response to CEMEX’s efforts. Without this
    information, we have no basis to predict what impact, if any, the
    trial court’s rulings on the second and third causes of action
    would have on the parties in the future. Further, because our
    affirmance on the first cause of action also moots the judgment on
    the two CEQA causes of action, we reverse the judgment on those
    two claims, and remand with directions to vacate those moot
    portions of the judgment.
    A.    The Trial Court Did Not Err In Setting Aside the
    DRB’s Substantial Conformance Determination
    The trial court concluded that the DRB’s “determination
    that the CEMEX project is in substantial conformance with the
    2013 Development Agreement is not supported by substantial
    evidence.” In accordance with that ruling, the court granted
    20
    respondents the following relief on their first cause of action:
    “[A] peremptory writ of mandate shall issue providing as follows:
    [¶] . . . [¶] City of Bell shall: [¶] A. Set aside the [DRB]’s finding
    that the construction and design plans for the CEMEX facility
    were in substantial conformity with the applicable provisions of
    the Development Agreement adopted by Bell in 2013; [¶]
    B. Commence such additional [DRB] processes as may be
    appropriate under the 2013 Development Agreement regarding
    the project approved in that Agreement; and [¶] C. File a return
    to the writ confirming that the above-described actions have been
    taken and/or that a notice of appeal has been filed.”
    Appellants argue the DRB properly found that the CEMEX
    project is “based on the design requirements of” the EIR and
    certain parts of the Development Agreement—“[t]he approved
    Scope of Development, which includes the Basic Design Concept,
    Development Standards and Permitted Uses; [¶] [and t]he
    Conditions of Approval.” Appellants further contend “the DRB
    also properly determined that, even if the design of the [CEMEX
    project] deviated from the design requirements of the governing
    documents,” the DRB “could . . . approve[ the CEMEX project] as
    a minor modification” to those requirements.
    As we explain below, the DRB’s substantial conformance
    determination was erroneous because the undisputed facts
    establish that CEMEX’s gravel storage facility does not constitute
    an Eligible Use identified in the Development Standards and
    Permitted Land Uses of the Development Agreement. Further,
    appellants fail to show that the DRB could nonetheless render
    the CEMEX project an Eligible Use. Accordingly, appellants
    do not demonstrate the trial court erred in granting relief on
    respondents’ first cause of action for administrative mandamus.
    21
    1.    The Development Agreement required the DRB to
    determine whether the CEMEX project is an
    Eligible Use
    We first note certain relevant provisions of the
    Development Agreement. Section 6.2.2 provides in pertinent
    part: “Before action is taken on any Future Development
    Approval,[12] . . . plans and drawings of such Project
    improvement, sign, building or alteration proposed as part of the
    Future Development Approval shall be submitted, in such form
    and detail as the Director [of Community Development] may
    prescribe, to the [DRB] for approval. The submittal shall include
    the following information to the extent applicable to the Future
    Development Approval being sought: [¶] (a) Site plans [¶]
    (b) Landscaping plans [¶] (c) Building elevations/renderings [¶]
    (d) Color and materials board.”
    Section 6.2.3 in turn provides: “In order to grant design
    review approval, the findings and determinations of the [DRB]
    shall be that the Project improvement, as set forth in the
    proposed Future Development Approval, is based on the design
    requirements included in the approved Scope of Development,
    Basic Design Concept, Conditions of Approval, and
    Environmental Impact Report.” Furthermore, Section 6.2.4
    states: “If the [DRB] is unable to make the findings and
    12 “Future Development Approvals” are “Site-specific
    (meaning specifically applicable to the Site only and not generally
    applicable to some or all other properties within the City) plans,
    maps, permits, and entitlements to use of every kind and nature”
    “approved by the City after the date the City Council approve[d]
    th[e] Agreement . . . .” The term “Site” refers to Parcels A, F, G,
    and H.
    22
    determinations prerequisite to the granting of design approval
    pursuant to this Section [(i.e., Section 6.2)], the application shall
    be denied.” Section 6.2.5 declares: “Approval of a design, and the
    finding that such design conforms to the provisions of this
    Agreement, is hereby declared to be an administrative function.
    The [DRB] has the authority and responsibility to perform this
    administrative function. The action thereon by the [DRB] shall
    be final and conclusive.”
    Exhibit C to the Development Agreement is titled “Scope of
    Development,” which includes “Exhibit C1 [ ] Basic Design
    Concept,” “Exhibit C2 [ ] Development Standards and Permitted
    Land Uses,” and “Exhibit C3 [ ] Offsite Improvement Narrative.”
    The Basic Design Concept is comprised of “Site Plans[,] [¶] . . . [a]
    Conceptual Landscape Plan[,] [¶] . . . Illustrative Drawings and
    Elevations[,] [¶] . . . [and] Building Materials.” Exhibit C2 of the
    Development Agreement includes a section titled “Eligible Uses,”
    which consists of “Permitted Uses,” “Accessory Uses,”
    “Conditional Uses,” and “Prohibited Uses.” (Some capitalization
    omitted from first quotation.) One “Permitted Use” listed therein
    is “[a]ny use currently permitted in the M (Manufacturing) or CM
    (Commercial Manufacturing) zoning districts.” Section 1.32 of
    the Development Agreement in turn provides in relevant part:
    “The Site, and all Parcels thereof, shall be restricted in use to
    those uses permitted under the Scope of Development (Exhibit
    ‘C2’).” Furthermore, Exhibit D to the Development Agreement is
    titled “Conditions of Approval.”13
    13 Although Section 1.60 defines “Scope of Development” as
    “the description of the Project and the manner in which it will be
    developed as set forth in Exhibit ‘D’ ” (italics added), this
    reference to Exhibit D appears to be a typographical error
    23
    The definitions section of the 198-page Development
    Agreement does not include an entry for “design requirements,”
    which, as we noted above, is a term used to delineate the scope of
    the DRB’s design review authority in Section 6.2.3. Furthermore,
    neither side claims that any provision of the Agreement supplies
    a definition of that term. In support of their contention that the
    CEMEX project is “consistent with the design requirements of the
    Scope of Development” (boldface omitted, italics added),
    appellants assert the DRB properly determined that the CEMEX
    project is an Eligible Use. Consequently, appellants have
    implicitly admitted that the “Eligible Uses” included in
    Exhibit C2 are “design requirements included in the approved
    Scope of Development” for the purposes of Section 6.2.3 of the
    Development Agreement. (See Artal, supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at
    p. 275, fn. 2; see also Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc.
    (2013) 
    213 Cal.App.4th 1258
    , 1272–1273 (Proctor) [indicating
    that a party’s legal theory may give rise to an implicit concession
    upon which a court may rely in deciding an appeal].)
    Indeed, as we explain below, the Development Agreement’s
    restrictions on use of the parcels have design implications for
    developments on Parcel A. In particular, the Eligible Uses listed
    in Exhibit C2 include “use[s] currently permitted in the
    M (Manufacturing) . . . zoning district,” uses that the applicable
    zoning code requires to be conducted within a completely enclosed
    building. (See Discussion, part A.2.b, post.) Therefore, we agree
    with appellants’ position that the Eligible Uses impose design
    because Exhibit D consists of the Conditions of Approval. Other
    provisions of the Development Agreement correctly identify
    Exhibit C as the Scope of Development.
    24
    requirements that the DRB must consider when conducting its
    review.
    2.    The DRB erred in concluding that the CEMEX project
    is an Eligible Use
    Appellants maintain that “[t]he Development
    Agreement . . . permitted a series of ‘industrial, manufacturing,
    and warehousing’ uses as ‘Eligible Uses,’ including, as most
    relevant here, gravel sales and storage facilities and onsite
    railroad service and transfer facilities.” Appellants seem to argue
    that although “gravel sales and storage facilities” are not
    identified explicitly in the Development Agreement, that activity
    constitutes the following Eligible Use, which appears under the
    subheading “Permitted Uses”: “[a]ny use currently permitted in
    the M (Manufacturing) . . . zoning district.”14 In addition,
    appellants intimate that the roofless gravel storage facility on
    Parcel A falls within the “distribution”; “logistics”; “sorting,
    loading, and unloading of parcels and freight”; and “onsite
    railroad service and transfer facility” entries in the Agreement’s
    Eligible Uses. (Capitalization omitted.) For the reasons
    discussed in this part, we reject appellants’ claim that the
    CEMEX project satisfies these definitions of Eligible Uses.
    We note as a preliminary matter that although the
    “Eligible Uses” list also allows “[a]ny use currently permitted in
    the . . . CM (Commercial Manufacturing) zoning district,”
    appellants do not cite any provision from the Municipal Code
    14  Under the Agreement, a “Permitted Use” is a category of
    “Eligible Uses” that (1) is not an “Accessory Use” or a “Prohibited
    Use,” and (2) does not require a conditional use permit. For
    instance, “Warehousing” and “Logistics” are Permitted Uses.
    25
    demonstrating that the CEMEX project would constitute a use
    “permitted in the . . . CM (Commercial Manufacturing) zoning
    district.” Furthermore, in their briefing as to this issue, the only
    Municipal Code provision appellants cite is Municipal Code
    section 17.40.020.A.20, which concerns only M Manufacturing
    zoning districts. Accordingly, we do not address further any uses
    permitted in CM zoning districts. (See Cahill v. San Diego Gas &
    Electric Co. (2011) 
    194 Cal.App.4th 939
    , 956 [“ ‘The absence of
    cogent legal argument or citation to authority allows this court to
    treat [a] contention as waived.’ ”].)
    a.    The 2013 version of the Municipal Code applies
    to this case, and appellants do not contend
    otherwise
    The version of the City’s Municipal Code that was operative
    when the City approved the Development Agreement in 2013
    governs whether the CEMEX project falls within the scope of the
    “[a]ny use currently permitted in the M (Manufacturing) . . .
    zoning district[ ]” entry in the Eligible Uses list.15 This passage’s
    focus on uses “currently permitted in the M (Manufacturing) . . .
    zoning district[ ]” (italics added) suggests the provision is
    governed by the zoning provisions in effect when the City adopted
    the Development Agreement. (See People v. Loeun (1997)
    
    17 Cal.4th 1
    , 11 [“ ‘[The legislative] use of a verb tense is
    significant in construing statutes.’ ”]; see also Christian v. Flora
    (2008) 
    164 Cal.App.4th 539
    , 551 (Christian) [“Contracts . . . are
    15 The Municipal Code provisions discussed in this opinion
    were in effect in 2013. We, sua sponte, take judicial notice of
    them. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (b), 459.)
    26
    writings to be construed in accordance with substantially the
    same canons of interpretation as statutes.”].)
    We further note that appellants’ legal arguments proceed
    on this assumption as well. Appellants argue that the
    Development Agreement is “a statutory development agreement,”
    which they claim functions as an “ ‘assurance that the project
    [will] be approved based on rules, regulations, and policies
    existing at the time the development agreement was approved,
    even if those rules, regulations, and policies changed over the
    course of the development project.’ ” (Quoting Mammoth Lakes
    Land Acquisition, LLC v. Town of Mammoth Lakes (2010)
    
    191 Cal.App.4th 435
    , 443.) In addition, to support their
    argument that the CEMEX project constitutes an Eligible Use,
    appellants cite a document they filed during the trial court
    proceedings, which they had identified as the version of
    “Municipal Code Section 17.40.020 in effect in . . . 2013 when the
    Development Agreement was approved . . . .” Accordingly,
    appellants implicitly agree that the 2013 version of the Municipal
    Code governs our analysis. (See Proctor, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th
    at pp. 1272–1273 [deeming certain parties to have made implicit
    concessions by advancing a particular legal theory on appeal].)
    b.    Appellants fail to demonstrate that CEMEX’s
    uncovered gravel storage facility complies with
    the applicable Municipal Code provisions for
    the M zoning district
    Appellants contend that Municipal Code
    section 17.40.020.A.20 authorizes CEMEX to maintain a gravel
    sales and storage facility on Parcel A. That provision states in
    pertinent part: “Permitted uses. [¶] No person shall use, or
    permit the use of any property zoned M except as herein
    27
    provided: [¶] A. Principal Uses. Premises in the M zone may be
    used for the following principal uses: [¶] . . . [¶] 20. Sand, gravel,
    fill dirt, topsoil sales and storage, not including a quarry
    operation . . . .”
    Notwithstanding the permissive language of Municipal
    Code section 17.40.020.A.20, another section of chapter 17.40
    restricts the gravel sales and storage operations of premises in
    the M zone. Municipal Code section 17.40.030.A provides:
    “Limitations on permitted uses. [¶] Every use in any M zone
    shall comply with the following: [¶] A. All uses shall be
    conducted within a completely enclosed building except for those
    uses which are customarily conducted in the open, such as the
    sale of cars, boats and recreational vehicles, as determined by the
    planning commission pursuant to Section 17.04.090 of this code.”
    Municipal Code section 17.04.090 in turn provides:
    “Clarification of ambiguity. [¶] If an ambiguity shall be
    found with reference to these regulations, including but not
    limited to, the appropriate classification of a particular use, the
    commission shall consider the matter and shall, by resolution,
    recommend to the city council the clarification of such ambiguity.
    When such a commission resolution has been approved by the
    city council, the same shall be deemed to be in force and effect
    and shall govern the interpretation of the affected provisions of
    this title, to which the same relates, until such time as an
    appropriate amendment thereto has been duly adopted.”
    It is undisputed that the CEMEX project calls for the
    storage of gravel in a building that does not have a roof.
    Respondents claim that the unroofed storage building does not
    constitute an Eligible Use because the DRB “failed to put the
    28
    issue to the Planning Commission for deliberation.”16 Appellants
    do not dispute respondents’ assertion that the DRB did not ask
    the Planning Commission to consider whether the unroofed
    storage building satisfies the “customarily conducted in the open”
    exception to the “completely enclosed building” requirement and,
    at oral argument, appellants conceded the absence of any such
    Planning Commission deliberation. Nor does it appear that the
    voluminous record in this matter contains the Planning
    Commission and City Council resolutions required by Municipal
    Code sections 17.40.030.A and 17.04.090, and we will not scour
    the record when appellants have failed to identify any such
    resolution in the record. (See Inyo Citizens for Better Planning v.
    Inyo County Bd. of Supervisors (2009) 
    180 Cal.App.4th 1
    , 4, 14
    (Inyo Citizens for Better Planning) [“ ‘We are not required to
    search the record to ascertain whether it contains support for
    [appellant’s] contentions.’ ”].)
    Appellants nonetheless maintain “the trial court correctly
    found” that the CEMEX project “falls neatly within” the
    16 Appellants urge us to disregard this argument because
    respondents raised it in a footnote in their respondents’ brief.
    We exercise our discretion to consider the argument. We do so
    because respondents’ placement of this argument in a footnote
    did not prejudice appellants, given that appellants detected
    respondents’ argument and offered a response in their reply brief.
    (See Doe v. Marysville Joint Unified School Dist. (2023)
    
    89 Cal.App.5th 910
    , 914, fn. 3 [recognizing that an appellate
    court has the discretion to excuse a party’s failure to adhere to
    appellate briefing requirements, and exercising that discretion in
    part because the briefing deficiencies did not prevent the other
    side from “substantively respond[ing] to [the party’s]
    arguments”].)
    29
    Development Agreement’s “parameters” for Eligible Uses. The
    excerpt from the trial court’s ruling appellants cite for this
    proposition cannot withstand the weight they place upon it.
    On the page they cite, the court explained that appellants
    had “argue[d] that the [CEMEX p]roject, which contemplates an
    open-air gravel storage and distribution facility, does not
    constitute a ‘substantial change’ from the Development
    Agreement because the Agreement permits the operation of a
    facility which sells and stores gravel.” (Italics omitted.) The
    court went on to state, “While CEMEX’s use of the Parcel might
    be consistent with the Development Agreement, this does not
    mean that such ‘Permitted Use’ was contemplated by the subject
    EIR.” (First italics omitted, second italics added.) This is hardly
    a finding that CEMEX’s use of Parcel A is an Eligible Use.
    Although the DRB determined that CEMEX’s “gravel
    (aggregate) sales and storage facility . . . is a Permitted Use in
    the M (Manufacturing) zone,” the DRB did not mention the
    limitations imposed by Municipal Code sections 17.40.030.A and
    17.04.090.
    Appellants maintain that the City’s “interpretation of a
    local ordinance . . . ‘is entitled to great weight unless it is clearly
    erroneous or unauthorized.’ ” (Quoting Friends of Davis v. City of
    Davis (2000) 
    83 Cal.App.4th 1004
    , 1015.) Appellants make this
    argument in support of a different proposition, that is, that the
    DRB’s design review process is exempt from CEQA. Specifically,
    they argue we should defer to the City’s “view that the
    Development Agreement’s design review process does not provide
    the DRB with authority to impose environmental-related
    conditions . . . .” Appellants do not argue expressly that we
    should defer to the DRB’s apparent construction of the City’s
    30
    zoning ordinances. Regardless, as set forth above, the plain
    meaning of Municipal Code sections 17.40.030.A and 17.04.090
    establishes that M zone uses that are not conducted within a
    completely enclosed building require Planning Commission and
    City Council approval. Therefore, any contrary interpretation of
    these provisions would be “clearly erroneous.” (See Friends of
    Davis, at p. 1015; see also Green v. State of California (2007)
    
    42 Cal.4th 254
    , 260 [“The statute’s plain meaning controls the
    court’s interpretation unless its words are ambiguous.”]; Zubarau
    v. City of Palmdale (2011) 
    192 Cal.App.4th 289
    , 305 [“ ‘Statutory
    construction is a question of law for the courts and the rules of
    statutory construction applicable to statutes are also applicable
    to local ordinances.’ ”]; Family Health Centers of San Diego,
    supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 97 [“While an administrative agency’s
    interpretation of the laws it is charged with enforcing may be
    entitled to deference, the court is the ultimate arbiter of the
    interpretation of the law.”].)
    c.    The other entries in the Eligible Uses list upon
    which appellants rely do not encompass the
    roofless gravel storage facility
    Appellants also suggest that regardless of whether the
    CEMEX project comports with the aforementioned zoning code
    restrictions on gravel sales and storage operations, the roofless
    gravel storage building is authorized by the following entries
    found within the “Permitted Uses” subset of the list of Eligible
    Uses: “distribution”; “logistics”; “loading and unloading of parcels
    and freight”; and “onsite railroad service and transfer facility.”
    (Capitalization omitted.)
    In particular, they claim the CEMEX project “is a state-of-
    the art distribution facility” that “differs from a warehousing
    31
    operation only in the type of product received at the facility for
    distribution to the ultimate consumer—i.e., aggregates, which are
    used to produce concrete to construct roads, housing, and public
    infrastructure.” (Italics added.) Appellants also refer to the
    CEMEX project as “[a]n aggregate distribution and rail transfer
    facility,” and, in the course of addressing the Municipal Code
    restrictions on the M zone, they ask rhetorically, “[W]hat railroad
    service and transfer facility is found indoors?” Additionally, in
    their reply brief, appellants point out that Eligible Uses under
    the Development Agreement include “logistics” and “sorting,
    loading, and unloading of parcels and freight.” (Capitalization
    omitted.) Appellants further claim that respondents’ reliance on
    regulations governing the M zoning district is “baseless” because
    “Eligible Uses were established by the Development Agreement,
    and the standards of the Development Agreement govern.”
    Thus, in appellants’ view, the roofless gravel storage
    building is simply a part of CEMEX’s distribution; logistics;
    loading and unloading of parcels and freight; and railroad
    operations on Parcel A. Under their approach, appellants need
    not resort to the Municipal Code provisions governing the M zone
    to establish the validity of their gravel storage facility on
    Parcel A. Given that appellants’ theory is not restricted by the
    provisions of the zoning code or by the particular goods listed in
    the Eligible Uses list (which does not include gravel), their
    interpretation would authorize the storage of any type of product
    on Parcel A. As explained below, this construction of the
    Agreement is unpersuasive.
    “ ‘[T]he context in which a [contract] term appears is
    critical. “ ‘[L]anguage in a contract must be construed in the
    context of that instrument as a whole, and in the circumstances
    32
    of the case . . . .’ ” [Citation.]’ . . . [Citation.]” (See Mount Vernon
    Fire Ins. Co. v. Busby (2013) 
    219 Cal.App.4th 876
    , 882 (Mount
    Vernon Fire Ins. Co.).)
    Here, the Eligible Uses appear in the Development
    Agreement for the Bell Business Center project, which is a
    development proposal for which the City had certified a final
    EIR. (Factual & Procedural Background, part 1, ante.) If the
    Agreement were construed in the manner appellants propose,
    then it would have been impractical for the City to conduct a
    meaningful environmental review of the Bell Business Center
    project. To discharge its obligations under CEQA, the City would
    have had to assess the significant environmental effects of every
    kind of good that conceivably could be distributed, transported by
    rail, and stored on Parcel A. (See Applicable Law, ante
    [summarizing the required contents of an EIR].) CEQA also
    would have required the City to formulate mitigation measures
    for each such significant environmental impact it had identified.
    (See ibid.) This administrative burden undermines appellants’
    expansive interpretation of the Agreement. (See Mount Vernon
    Fire Ins. Co., supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 882 [indicating the
    parties’ “reasonable expectations” govern a court’s interpretation
    of a contract, italics omitted].)
    Furthermore, the City explained in the EIR that—just as is
    the case in the M zoning district—the Municipal Code typically
    requires uses in the CM zone to be conducted within a completely
    enclosed building. The City further stated that the Bell Business
    Center project was “consistent with the existing . . . zoning for the
    project site” in part because “[t]he intent of the proposed project
    is to construct sufficient building area to allow all uses to be
    conducted in an enclosed building.” The City thus concluded the
    33
    Bell Business Center project presented no “conflict with . . . [the]
    zoning ordinance” that needed to be addressed by “mitigation
    measures.” (Boldface, capitalization, & underscoring omitted.)
    This analysis from the EIR indicates that the municipality
    regards the completely enclosed building requirement as a “land
    use . . . regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
    mitigating an environmental effect.”17
    Because appellants’ proffered interpretation of the
    Agreement would ignore and contradict other portions of the
    Agreement18 and yield an absurd result, we find it unpersuasive.
    (See West Pueblo Partners, LLC v. Stone Brewing Co., LLC (2023)
    
    90 Cal.App.5th 1179
    , 1185 [“[T]he court ‘should avoid an
    interpretation [of a contract] . . . which would result in an
    absurdity . . . .’ ”].)
    For the foregoing reasons, appellants have failed to
    demonstrate that the roofless gravel storage building constitutes
    an Eligible Use under the Agreement.
    17  (See 14 Cal. Code Regs., Div. 6, Ch. 3, App’x G, § XI,
    subd. (b) [excerpt from checklist included with the CEQA
    Guidelines to assist a public agency in determining whether it
    should analyze certain potentially significant environmental
    impacts].)
    18 The Agreement contains several provisions indicating
    that the EIR is incorporated by reference therein. For instance,
    Section 4.4 provides in relevant part: “[T]he Developer [(PI Bell)]
    shall have a vested right . . . to receive from the City all Future
    Development Approvals for the Site that are consistent with, and
    implement, the EIR and this Agreement . . . .” (Italics added.)
    34
    3.    Appellants fail to establish that the DRB’s authority
    to approve minor modifications resuscitates the DRB’s
    erroneous substantial conformance determination
    As we have noted in our Factual and Procedural
    Background, part 3, ante, the DRB made the following statement
    in its resolution: “To the extent any of the foregoing findings
    [provided in the resolution approving CEMEX’s design review
    application] were overturned, in the alternative, any deviations
    by the Project are found to be minor within the meaning of
    Section 5D of Exhibit C . . . .” (Boldface omitted.) Citing this
    finding, appellants claim “the DRB . . . properly determined that,
    even if the design of the [CEMEX project] deviated from the
    design requirements of the governing documents, it could be
    approved” pursuant to the DRB’s authority to make “minor
    modification[s].” For instance, appellants maintain this provision
    of the Development Agreement authorized the DRB to approve
    any deviations between the CEMEX project and the Site Plans
    included in the Basic Design Concept.
    Section 5D of Exhibit C to the Agreement confers upon the
    DRB “the subjective authority to administratively approve minor
    modifications to the Basic Design Concept subsequent to approval
    by the Bell City Council, under this Agreement and the Project
    Entitlements.” (Italics added.) Section 5D further provides that
    “[a]pproval of any minor modification is contingent upon the
    [DRB] finding that such modification”: (1) “is consistent with the
    maximum total square footage for the Project;” (2) “is in
    substantial compliance with the fundamental theme, idiom, and
    design intent of the Basic Design Concept as described in
    Exhibit C1;” (3) “promotes the Public Benefits outlined in
    Section K of the Development Agreement;” and (4) “would not
    35
    require additional environmental review subject to Section 15162
    of the CEQA Guidelines.”
    Appellants admit that Section 5D of Exhibit C grants the
    DRB “the authority to approve minor modifications to the Basic
    Design Concept.” (Italics added.) The list of Eligible Uses is not
    found within the Basic Design Concept. The Basic Design
    Concept is Exhibit C1 to the Development Agreement, whereas
    the “Eligible Uses” are listed in Exhibit C2 of the Agreement.
    (Discussion, part A.1, ante.) “Eligible Uses” are defined in
    Exhibit C2.
    Admittedly, the “[e]xamples of minor modifications”
    provided in Section 5D include the following language:
    “Variances to the Development Standards, including building size
    or magnitude not more than 10%, except that reductions in size
    may be subject to approval of the [DRB], except where the [DRB]
    believes such approval should be within the discretion of the City
    Council.” The Development Standards are in Exhibit C2, and not
    in the Basic Design Concept in Exhibit C1. The Development
    Standards include lot dimensions, maximum building height, and
    the size of off-street parking spaces.
    We fail to discern how reliance on Section 5D helps
    appellants. They do not argue in their briefing that the DRB’s
    authority to make minor modifications extends to the Eligible
    Uses (as opposed to the Development Standards) in Exhibit C2.
    It is true that the Development Standards and Eligible Uses are
    two subcategories of Exhibit C2. Although the title of Exhibit C2
    reads: “Development Standards and Permitted Land Uses
    (‘Development Standards’),” appellants do not assert that the
    shorthand utilized in the title signifies that the Eligible Uses
    constitute “Development Standards” subject to the DRB’s
    36
    authority to make minor modifications. Rather, appellants treat
    the Development Standards and Eligible Uses as two separate
    components of Exhibit C2 in their briefing.
    In any event, appellants do not claim in their briefing that
    eliminating the zoning code’s requirement for Planning
    Commission/City Council approval would constitute a “minor
    modification” within the scope of Section 5D of Exhibit C.
    (Boldface & capitalization omitted; italics added.) Indeed, such
    an expansive view of the DRB’s power would contradict
    appellants’ theory that “the DRB’s review was limited to the
    aesthetic design” of the CEMEX project (italics added), and that
    “[t]here was nothing . . . for the DRB to consider but the design
    because the City long ago approved the use [of Parcel A] in the
    Development Agreement,” (italics added). (See Proctor, supra,
    213 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1272–1273 [relying on parties’ implicit
    concessions].)
    It necessarily follows that appellants have waived any
    claim that the DRB could remedy the CEMEX project’s
    noncompliance with the Eligible Uses restriction in the
    Development Agreement. (See Golden Door Properties, LLC,
    supra, 50 Cal.App.5th at p. 555 [“ ‘ “Issues not raised in an
    appellant’s brief are deemed waived or abandoned.” ’ ”]; Inyo
    Citizens for Better Planning, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 14
    [“We do not serve as ‘backup appellate counsel,’ or make the
    parties’ arguments for them.”].)
    We further note that the Development Agreement
    expressly confers upon the Planning Commission the authority to
    permit a deviation from the Eligible Uses by issuing a conditional
    use permit. That provision further suggests the DRB would not
    have the power to cure the CEMEX project’s violation of the
    37
    Agreement’s Eligible Uses restriction. (See Gikas v. Zolin (1993)
    
    6 Cal.4th 841
    , 852 [“Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The
    expression of some things in a statute necessarily means the
    exclusion of other things not expressed.”]; see also Christian,
    supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 551 [holding that contracts are to be
    “construed in accordance with substantially the same canons of
    interpretation as statutes”].)
    For the foregoing reasons, appellants have not overcome
    the presumption of correctness accorded to the trial court’s
    judgment in respondents’ favor on the first cause of action. (See
    Shenouda, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 512 [“Because judgments
    of the trial court are presumed to be correct, the appellant bears
    the burden to affirmatively demonstrate error, and must show
    that the error was prejudicial.”].)
    4.    With one exception, we do not reach other claims and
    subclaims respondents advance in support of the
    judgment on their first cause of action
    In affirming the judgment on respondents’ first cause of
    action for writ of mandamus, we—with one exception discussed
    below—express no opinion on the other challenges respondents
    raise to the DRB’s substantial conformance determination. These
    other claims (even excluding their various attendant subparts)
    include that: the CEMEX facility does not substantially conform
    to the Basic Design Concept, the CEMEX facility is inconsistent
    with the Development Agreement’s Conditions of Approval, and
    the CEMEX facility is inconsistent with the EIR. We decline to
    decide these issues because our conclusion that the CEMEX
    project does not satisfy the Eligible Use restriction of the
    Agreement is a sufficient ground to affirm the trial court’s ruling
    on the first cause of action. In addition, as explained in
    38
    Discussion, part B, post, we have no basis on this record to
    determine what actions the parties will take in light of our ruling
    and whether respondents’ other challenges regarding substantial
    conformance would still be relevant depending on such yet to be
    identified actions.
    We do exercise our discretion to address respondents’
    assertion in their briefing and at oral argument that the
    Development Agreement authorizes only “a parcel distribution
    warehouse” on Parcel A. (See In re D.P. (2023) 
    14 Cal.5th 266
    ,
    282 (D.P.) [holding that “courts may exercise their ‘inherent
    discretion’ to reach the merits of” moot questions].) In particular,
    respondents argue “that [the] Development Agreement
    contemplated a specific type of use: warehouse distribution
    centers served by truck . . . .” Respondents intimate that because
    the three Site plans for Parcel A included in the Basic Design
    Concept “all . . . portray a large warehouse building occupying
    most of the site,” no proposal for an Eligible Use other than a
    parcel distribution center could substantially conform to the
    design requirements of the Basic Design Concept. Respondents
    seem to go even further, suggesting that the DRB lacked
    authority to approve a minor modification authorizing a facility
    other than the large warehouses depicted on the Site plans, given
    that any such modification could not “substantial[ly] compl[y]
    with the fundamental theme, idiom, and design intent of the
    Basic Design Concept . . . .”
    We reject the notion that the Agreement restricts the
    development of Parcel A to only a “FedEx-like warehouse.”
    We must construe the Development Agreement’s provisions
    together, rather than in isolation from one another. (See
    Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage
    39
    Control Appeals Bd. (2018) 
    29 Cal.App.5th 410
    , 418 [“In
    construing a contract or other written instrument, we consider it
    ‘as a whole and interpret the language in context, rather than
    interpret a provision in isolation.’ ”].) Interpreting the Basic
    Design Concept as a proscription on any use other than a parcel
    distribution warehouse would violate that precept by rendering
    the other Eligible Uses superfluous. (See United Farmers Agents
    Assn., Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2019) 
    32 Cal.App.5th 478
    , 495
    [“We strive to ‘give effect to all of a contract’s terms, and to avoid
    interpretations that render any portion superfluous, void or
    inexplicable.’ ”].) In sum, we hold that a parcel distribution
    warehouse is not the only type of use permissible on Parcel A.
    B.    Our Affirmance of the Trial Court’s Ruling on the
    Mandamus Cause of Action Moots Appellants’
    Challenges Vis-à-Vis the CEQA Causes of Action
    “ ‘California courts will decide only justiciable
    controversies. [Citations.] The concept of justiciability is a tenet
    of common law jurisprudence and embodies “[t]he principle that
    courts will not entertain an action which is not founded on an
    actual controversy . . . .” [Citations.] . . . .’ [M]oot cases ‘are
    “[t]hose in which an actual controversy did exist but, by the
    passage of time or a change in circumstances, ceased to exist.”
    [Citation.]’ [Citation.] [¶] . . . ‘The pivotal question in
    determining if a case is moot is . . . whether the court can grant
    the [party] any effectual relief. [Citations.] . . . . [Citations.]’
    [Citations.]” (See Parkford Owners for a Better Community v.
    County of Placer (2020) 
    54 Cal.App.5th 714
    , 722 (Parkford
    Owners for a Better Community).)
    “For relief to be ‘effective,’ two requirements must be met.
    First, the [party] must complain of an ongoing harm. Second, the
    40
    harm must be redressable or capable of being rectified by the
    outcome the [party] seeks.” (See D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at
    p. 276.) “[R]elief is effective when it ‘can have a practical,
    tangible impact on the parties’ conduct or legal status.’
    [Citation.]” (See id. at p. 277.) Allegations of “speculative future
    harm” are not “sufficient to avoid mootness.” (See id. at pp. 278,
    282.)
    Respondents contend that we “need not reach the trial
    court’s ruling on [their] second and third causes of action” if we
    affirm the judgment in their favor on the first cause of action for
    writ of mandamus. In support of this contention, respondents
    claim that affirmance of the disposition of their first cause of
    action “would require the City to follow the amendment
    procedures set out in the Development Agreement—and conduct
    further environmental review of the CEMEX facility under
    CEQA . . . .” Appellants offer no response to this argument in
    their reply brief. We agree with respondents to the extent our
    affirmance of the judgment on the first cause of action moots
    appellants’ challenges to the judgment on the remaining causes
    of action.
    The trial court granted the following relief on respondents’
    two CEQA causes of action (i.e., the second and third causes of
    action): “[A] peremptory writ of mandate shall issue providing as
    follows: [¶] . . . [¶] City of Bell shall: [¶] A. Withdraw and set
    aside the Bell [DRB]’s Notice of Exemption filed on
    February 5, 2019 concerning the CEMEX project; [¶] B. Take
    such additional steps under CEQA as it deems proper; and [¶]
    C. File a return to the writ confirming that the above-described
    actions have been taken and/or that a notice of appeal has been
    filed.”
    41
    We conclude that our affirmance regarding the first cause
    of action moots the trial court’s order requiring the City to set
    aside the Notice of Exemption. By its terms, the Notice was
    intended to exempt from CEQA the “adoption of Resolution 2018-
    23-DRB,” which is the DRB’s resolution granting design review
    approval for the CEMEX project. We affirm the trial court’s
    judgment setting aside the substantial conformance
    determination underlying that resolution. (See Discussion,
    part A, ante.) Because Section 6.2.4 of the Agreement conditions
    the DRB’s authority to grant design approval on the propriety of
    its substantial conformance determination (see Discussion,
    part A.1, ante), the DRB’s resolution is no longer valid. Indeed,
    according to appellants’ interpretation of the judgment, the trial
    court “ordered that the DRB’s approval be set aside.” (Italics
    added.) Given that the Notice of Exemption now pertains to an
    invalid DRB resolution, that Notice can have no practical or
    tangible impact on the parties’ conduct or legal status.
    Because we do not know what steps the parties will take
    given that the DRB resolution is now invalid, it would not be
    appropriate for us to opine on whether the trial court erred in
    ordering the City to “[t]ake such additional steps under CEQA as
    [the City] deems proper.” We do not know whether CEMEX will
    seek approvals from the Planning Commission and City Council
    to be able to maintain its current use of Parcel A, and whether
    CEQA would require City officials to undertake further
    environmental review as part of any such approval process. If
    the City requires changes to the CEMEX project as a condition of
    42
    approval,19 that decision could trigger the City’s obligation to
    conduct further environmental review even in the absence of the
    trial court’s judgment on the CEQA claims. (See CEQA
    Guidelines, § 15162, subd. (a)(1) [requiring a subsequent EIR to
    be prepared if “[s]ubstantial changes are proposed in the project
    which will require major revisions of the previous EIR . . . due to
    the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
    substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
    significant effects”].)
    We do not know whether CEMEX will seek an ordinance
    amending the Development Agreement pursuant to Section 7.2
    thereof to permit an uncovered storage facility, and whether the
    City will impose new conditions in such an ordinance that could
    implicate further CEQA review.
    We are thus loathe to render an advisory opinion on CEQA
    obligations when we have no information as to how Parcel A will
    be used in light of our ruling in favor of respondents on the first
    cause of action. For all these reasons, we conclude that
    appellants’ challenges to the trial court’s judgment on the second
    and third causes of action are moot. (Cf. In re Briana V. (2015)
    
    236 Cal.App.4th 297
    , 299, 308, 311–312 [indicating that an
    appellate court’s affirmance of one aspect of an appealed order
    can, under certain circumstances, render nonjusticiable an
    19  The City has required changes to the CEMEX project in
    the past. Specifically, appellants admit that after East Yard
    challenged the prior iteration of the project, appellants entered
    into a settlement requiring that changes be made to CEMEX’s
    proposal, including the inclusion of a “fully enclose[d] . . .
    conveyor system [and the] implement[ation of] a dust control and
    storm water plan . . . .”
    43
    appellant’s challenge to other portions of that order].)
    Additionally, because respondents conceded in their briefing that
    our affirmance on the first cause of action would moot appellants’
    challenges to the second and third causes of action, and
    appellants make no argument to the contrary in their briefing,
    we decline to decide whether the trial court’s rulings on the
    CEQA causes of action were erroneous. (See Parkford Owners for
    a Better Community, supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at p. 721 [indicating
    that an appellant’s “burden of demonstrating reversible error”
    includes an obligation to rebut a persuasive claim of mootness].)
    We turn next to the proper disposition of the judgment on
    respondents’ second and third causes of action. “ ‘ “As a general
    rule, ‘an appeal presenting only abstract or academic questions is
    subject to dismissal as moot.’ [Citation.]” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]”
    (Vernon v. State of California (2004) 
    116 Cal.App.4th 114
    , 120.)
    A different disposition is appropriate “[i]n some instances,
    however . . . .” (See Delta Stewardship Council Cases (2020)
    
    48 Cal.App.5th 1014
    , 1054–1055 (Delta Stewardship Council
    Cases).) Specifically, “[w]hen the basis for the trial court’s
    judgment becomes nonexistent due to postjudgment acts or
    events [(i.e., when the judgment itself has become moot)], an
    appellate court should ‘ “dispose of the case, not merely of the
    appellate proceeding which brought it here.” [Citation.] That
    result can be achieved by reversing the judgment solely for the
    purpose of restoring the matter to the jurisdiction of the superior
    court, with directions to the court to dismiss the proceeding.
    [Citations.] Such a reversal, of course, does not imply approval of
    a contrary judgment, but is merely a procedural step necessary to
    a proper disposition of th[e] case.’ [Citation.]” (See id. at
    p. 1055.)
    44
    Our affirmance on the first cause of action not only moots
    appellants’ challenges regarding the second and third causes of
    action, but also the judgment adjudicating those two CEQA
    claims. Upon the issuance of our remittitur, the trial court will
    be empowered to enforce the portion of the judgment requiring
    the City to set aside the DRB’s approval of the CEMEX project.20
    As we explained earlier in this part, setting aside the DRB’s
    decision (a) nullifies the legal significance of the Notice of
    Exemption; and (b) allows the parties to undertake numerous
    potential courses of action in connection with CEMEX’s use of
    Parcel A, thereby rendering an analysis of the City’s CEQA
    obligations—including the trial court’s ruling on those issues—an
    advisory opinion.
    Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment on the
    second and third causes of action, and remand the matter to the
    trial court for the purpose of “vacating [those aspects of the]
    judgment[ ] solely on the ground of mootness.” (See Delta
    Stewardship Council Cases, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1055–
    1056 [utilizing this disposition].) “In following this procedure,
    we . . . appropriately avoid affirming th[ose portions of the]
    judgment[ ] by implication.” (See id. at p. 1056.) We express no
    opinion on whether the judgment on those two causes of action
    was erroneous. (See id. at pp. 1055–1056.)
    20  (See In re Anna S. (2010) 
    180 Cal.App.4th 1489
    , 1499
    [“Generally the filing of a notice of appeal deprives the trial court
    of jurisdiction of the cause and vests jurisdiction with the
    appellate court until the reviewing court issues a remittitur.”],
    citing, inter alia, Code Civ. Proc., § 916, subd. (a) [“[T]he
    perfecting of an appeal stays . . . enforcement of the [appealed]
    judgment . . . .”].)
    45
    DISPOSITION
    We affirm the judgment in respondents’ favor on the first
    cause of action for writ of administrative mandamus. We reverse
    the judgment on respondents’ second and third causes of action,
    and remand this matter to the trial court with directions to
    vacate as moot the judgment on those two causes of action. We
    express no opinion on whether the trial court erred regarding the
    second and third causes of action. Respondents are awarded
    their costs on appeal.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
    BENDIX, J.
    We concur:
    ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
    WEINGART, J.
    46
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B316271

Filed Date: 6/15/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/15/2023