Comunidad en Accion v. Los Angeles City Council

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The genesis of this lawsuit is the City‟s approval of waste facilities in Sun Valley, where Comunidad alleges its predominately Latino residents are subjected to a disproportionate amount of pollution. On May 11, 2010, the Los Angeles City Council (City Council) certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approved Waste Management Recycling and Disposal Services of California Inc.‟s (Waste Management) request to build a new 104,000-square-foot solid waste transfer station, an expanded materials recycling facility, and an expanded green waste processing center (collectively

2 the challenged facilities) at the Bradley Landfill site in Sun Valley. The challenged facilities all fall within the definition of solid waste facilities. (Pub. Res. Code, § 40194.) The City‟s Planning Department acted as the lead agency responsible for preparing documents to ensure compliance under the CEQA. The City‟s Planning Department also processed the applications and approvals. The City did not consider siting the challenged facilities in another location. 1. The Complaint After the City approved Waste Management‟s request to build the challenged facilities, Comunidad sued…

*1121 Opinion

This lawsuit concerns a community organization’s—Comunidad en Acción (Comunidad)—challenge under the antidiscrimination statute in Government Code section 11135 (section 11135) to the City of Los Angeles’s (City) siting of waste facilities in Sun Valley. We affirm the summary adjudication of the section 11135 claim because Comunidad failed to raise a triable issue of material fact supporting the inference the City’s siting decision subjected residents of Sun Valley to discrimination under “any program or activity that is . . . funded directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state.” (§ 11135, subd. (a).)

Comunidad also challenged the waste facilities under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). We reverse the dismissal of Comunidad’s CEQA claims. The trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the claims based on Comunidad’s one-week delay in requesting a hearing. Even though CEQA requires the expedited prosecution of claims arising under it, a trial court may grant a motion for discretionary relief based on excusable neglect. The trial court should have granted Comunidad’s motion for…

I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion affirming the granting of summary adjudication of appellant’s claim that the city’s authorization of expansion of the Bradley *1136 Landfill site violates the antidiscrimination provisions of Government Code section 11135. 1 At a time when federal, state and local governments are calling for increased vigilance to stop imposing disproportional environmental burdens on lower income communities, the majority discards a potential tool for the enhancement of environmental justice. In so doing, the majority rejects the legislative mandate to interpret section 11135 broadly. (§ 11139.) Instead, the court’s opinion holds that conduct by the City of Los Angeles (City) which is alleged to discriminate against a predominately Latino community is not subject to California’s antidiscrimination statute. I would reverse the order granting summary judgment as it relates to the section 11135 claim. I do agree with the majority that the trial court erred in granting summary adjudication of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims, and I join in part 2 of the Discussion in the majority opinion.

For these reasons, I would…