2014.12.12 Opening Brief Coastal Hills Rural Preservation vs. County of Sonoma, Case# SCV-255694

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
MICHAEL R. LOZEAU (Cal. Bar No. 142893)

RICHARD T. DRURY (Cal. Bar No. 163559)
REBECCA L. DAVIS (Cal. Bar. No. 271662)
LOZEAU | DRURY LLP
410 12th Street, Suite 250
Oakland, CA 94607
Tel: (510) 836-4200
Fax: (510) 836-4205
E-mail:
michael@lozeaudrury.com
rebecca@lozeaudrury.com
Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SONOMA
9
10
11
12
13
COASTAL HILLS RURAL PRESERVATION, Case No.: SCV-255694

an unincorporated organization,
Petitioner and Plaintiff,
vs.
PETITIONERS OPENING BRIEF IN

SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT
OF MANDATE
14
15
16
17
18
COUNTY OF SONOMA, a political subdivision Hearing Date: March 27, 2015

of the State of California, SONOMA COUNTY Time: 9:00 a.m.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, governing body of Department 16
Honorable Elliot Lee Daum
the County of Sonoma; SONOMA COUNTY
PERMIT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT, a public entity; and DOES 1
Action filed: July 24, 2014
through 10, inclusive,
19
Respondents and Defendants;

20
21
22
JACK PETRANKER, an individual, the Head

Lama of the Tibetan Nyingmapa Meditation
Center, a California non-profit corporation; and
ROES 1 through 10, inclusive,
23
24
Real Party in Interest and Defendants.
25
26
27
28
PETITIONERS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 3
2
3
4
5
A.
The 2004 Use Permit ......................................................................................................... 3
B.
Piecemeal Expansion of Ratna Ling .................................................................................. 4
C.
The Printing Facility is not Ancillary to the Retreat Center,

Dwarfing the Retreat Components Both in Terms of Number of Personnel, Facilities and
Activity at the Site, and Being the Raison Dtre for
Ratna Lings Presence There ............................................................................................. 5
D.
The Project ......................................................................................................................... 6
6
7
8
9
III.
10
11
LEGAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 7

A.
General Plan and Land Use................................................................................................ 7
B.
California Environmental Quality Act ............................................................................... 8

1. Levels of review under CEQA ..................................................................................... 8
12
i.
Where a new project is proposed, the fair argument standard applies to

determine the need for an EIR ............................................................................ 9
ii.
Project previously reviewed under CEQA .......................................................... 9
13
14
2. Project description, piecemealing, and baseline ........................................................ 10
15
16
IV.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.............................................................................................. 11
V.
LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................................................. 12
17
18
19
20
VI.
A.
General Plan Consistency ................................................................................................ 12
B.
California Environmental Quality Act ............................................................................. 13
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... 13
A.
1. The Project conflicts with mandatory policies of the Land Use Element of the
Sonoma County General Plan .................................................................................... 14
21
22
2. The Project is inconsistent with the Sonoma County Zoning Code .......................... 15
23
24
25
The Ratna Ling Project is inconsistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code ............ 13
3. Ratna Lings printing operations are not an accessory use. ................................... 17

B.
The County failed to comply with CEQA ....................................................................... 20

1. This Project is a new project because it has never previously been reviewed under
CEQA......................................................................................................................... 20
26
27
28
2. An EIR is required because substantial evidence in the record supports a fair

argument that the Project has significant public safety and fire impacts ................... 20
i.
Substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the Project will
have significant public safety and fire impacts ................................................. 21
i
1) Limited infrastructure in RRD zones ....................................................... 21
2) The 2007 Building Code .......................................................................... 21

2
3
ii.
An EIR is required because the Project will conflict with the General Plan and
Zoning Code...................................................................................................... 24
3. The County relies on an improper baseline ............................................................... 25

4. Even under section 21166 the SMND is invalid because the Countys conclusion
that the Project will result in no significant public safety and fire impacts is not
supported by substantial evidence ............................................................................. 26
5
6
5. Even under section 21166 the SMND is invalid because it is based on the improper
baseline, and therefore does not analyze the consistency of the warehouse tents
with the RRD land use designation and zoning requirements ................................... 27
7
8
6. If the Project is considered a modification rather than a new project, then the
County improperly piecemealed the larger Ratna Ling Project................................. 28
9
10
V.
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ii
1
2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Abbatti v. Imperial Irrig. Dist. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 650 ................................................................... 10
Apartment Assn of Greater Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1162 .. 11, 25, 26
Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. So. Valley Area Planning Commn (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1333 ........... 28, 29
Assn for a Cleaner Envt v. Yosemite Cmty. College Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 629 ...................... 10
7
8
Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 ................... 8
Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263 ................................................................................................. 10
10
Chamberlin v. City of Palo Alto, (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 181..................................................... 11, 25, 26
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Citizens Assn for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo

(1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151 ................................................................................................................ 28
Citizens for Non-Toxic Pest Control v. Dept. Food & Agr. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1575...................... 27
Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista
(2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 327 ................................................................................................................ 9
Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553 ...................................................... 7
City of Irvine v. County of Orange (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 846 ............................................................ 13
18
19
City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unif. School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal. App. 4th 889 ............................ 24
20
City of Santa Ana v. City of Garden Grove (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 521 .................................................. 7
21
City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438 ................................................ 10, 28
22
Cmtys. for a Better Envt v. Calif. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98 ....................................... 8, 11
23
Cmtys. for a Better Envt v. So. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310 .................... 11, 25
24
25
Corona-Norco Unified School Dist.v. City of Corona (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 985 .................................. 7
26
County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185 ............................................... 10, 11, 25
27
County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544..................................... 20
28
Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777................................... 24
iii
CASES (contd)
Fairview Neighbors v. County of Ventura (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 238 ............................................. 16, 25

3
4
Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Bd. of Supervisors of El Dorado County
(1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1334 ................................................................................................................ 7
Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004................................................................. 9

6
7
Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859 ....................... 24
Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359 ......................................................................... 24
Katzeff v. Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 601 .......................................... 28
10
Kings Co v. Hanford (1990) 221 CA3d 692 ............................................................................................ 27
11
Laurel Heights Improvements Assn v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 ........................... 8
12
13
Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531........................................... 7
14
Lincoln Place Tenants Assn v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491 ............................... 10
15
Markey v. Danville Warehouse & Lbr., Inc. (1953) 119 Cal.App.2d 1 ................................................... 16
16
Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322 ........................................................................ 9

17
18
Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors

(2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342 ................................................................................................................ 12
19
Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176................................. 7

20
21
No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68 ......................................................................... 20
22
Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872 ............................... 24
23
Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903 ........................................... 8, 9, 22
24
POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681 ..................................................... 13
25
Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307 ........................................................ 2, 9, 10

26
27
28
Save Our Neighborhood v. Lishman (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1299 ........................................................ 10

Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99 ................................ 11
iv
CASES (contd)
Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116 .................................................................. 13

3
4
5
Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1974) 202 Cal.App.3d 296 .................................................... 8, 9, 28

Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova
(2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 ........................................................................................................................ 13
6
7
Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 933 ....................................................................... 12
STATUTES
Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5(b) ........................................................................................................ 12
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2007 California Building Code

701A.3.1................................................................................................................................................. 23
701A.3.................................................................................................................................................... 23
312.1....................................................................................................................................................... 23
311.2....................................................................................................................................................... 23
Public Resources Code, California Environmental Quality Act
21000 et seq ............................................................................................................................................ 1
21002.1(a) ............................................................................................................................................... 8
21080(c)(1) ............................................................................................................................................. 8
21080(c)(2) ............................................................................................................................................. 8
21080(e)(1) ............................................................................................................................................. 9
21100(a) .................................................................................................................................................. 8
21151................................................................................................................................................. 9, 20
21151(a) .................................................................................................................................................. 8
21166................................................................................................................................... 10, 20, 25, 28
21168.5.................................................................................................................................................. 13
REGULATIONS
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14

15064(a)(1) ............................................................................................................................................. 8
15064(f)(1) .............................................................................................................................................. 8
15064(f)(2) .............................................................................................................................................. 8
15064(f)(3) .............................................................................................................................................. 8
15125(d) ................................................................................................................................................ 24
15162........................................................................................................................................... 9, 10, 25
15162(b) ................................................................................................................................................ 10
15367....................................................................................................................................................... 8
15384(a) ................................................................................................................................................ 13
v
Appendix G ........................................................................................................................................... 24
MISCELLANEOUS
Sonoma County General Plan 2020 ..................................................................................... 7, 8, 14, 15, 21

Sonoma County Zoning Code
26-10-005 .............................................................................................................................................. 15
26-10-010 .............................................................................................................................................. 16
26-10-020 .............................................................................................................................................. 16
26-02-140 .............................................................................................................................................. 17
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
vi
I.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioners bring this action to challenge the June 24, 2014 decision of the Sonoma County Board
of Supervisors (the County) approving Real Parties in Interest Jack Petranker and the Head Lama of
3
4
the Tibetan Nyingmapa Meditation Centers (hereinafter Ratna Ling) application for a Master Use
Permit (PLP08-0021) for the Ratna Ling Buddhist Retreat Center and an accessory 60,000 square-foot
printing operation, adopting findings under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources
Code (PRC) section 21000 et seq. (CEQA) 1 that all impacts associated with the project will be
mitigated to less than significant with the adoption of mitigation measures and adopting a subsequent
mitigated negative declaration (SMND); and approving Resolution No. 14-0283 approving the Master
Use Permit (collectively, the Project).

Shortly after purchasing the land in 2004, Ratna Ling began operating a Buddhist Retreat Center
10
11
and an ancillary printing facility in Cazadero, California (Ratna Ling Site). When the printing
facility began operating, it consisted of a single press, and all printing and storage took place in a single
12
18,750 square foot building, which was limited to a maximum occupancy of 27 people. (AR6-7;
13
14
AR4603.) The County permitted the use based on the limited scope of the printing compared to the
primary use of the site as a retreat center. (AR7; AR5985.) The County found that the modest printing
15
use was ancillary to the primary use of the site as a retreat center, but noted that it was about the limit
16
of what is reasonable for an accessory use. (AR6742.)

The Project authorizes a tripling in size of the permanent printing operations allowed in the 2004
17
18
Use Permit, without mitigating the impacts of locating an industrial scale printing plant and associated
19
warehouses in a rural area of Sonoma County. Specifically, the Project will triple the amount of
20
permanent building space used for the printing operations from the original 18,750 square feet to more
21
than 60,000 square feet, increase the maximum occupancy of the press building from 27 to 80 workers,
remove the annual book production limit of 100,000 books, and allow daily trips by a 24-foot truck
22
related to book production and distribution. (AR36-37.)

23
24
Petitioners do not object to the religious nature of the site, and are fully supportive of Ratna Ling
as a Buddhist retreat center. Petitioners object to the location of an industrial printing operation in a
25
rural area of Sonoma County that lacks the infrastructure to manage industrial fires and potentially
26
hazardous emergencies associated with industrial operations.
27
28
All further statutory references shall be to the PRC unless otherwise noted.
1
The most expert agency relevant to fire risks at the Project site the Timber Cove Fire
Protection District submitted comments to the County indicating that the Fire District is unable to
handle industrial fires and hazards. Through written and oral comments, the Fire Protection District
3
4
warned the County of the significant unmitigated impacts of the Project: [I]f the operations allowed by
proposed use permit are approved by the Board, the District cannot adequately protect the people,
property, and natural resources within its district from the risk of industrial fire. (AR12702.) The
District does not have the equipment or training to fight industrial fires and hazards because until
Ratna Lings operations there were no significant industrial operations within the District. (Id.)
The County failed to proceed in a manner required by law by approving the Project despite its
inconsistency with the Sonoma County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The County acted ultra
10
11
vires by approving the Project because an industrial use is not allowed in a Rural Resources and
Development zone, and because the printing operations at Ratna Ling are no longer ancillary to the
retreat center. Instead, the retreat center is ancillary to the printing facility, the main focus of the facility
12
now being to print and store books, albeit religious tracts largely distributed to Buddhist communities in
13
14
Tibet. (AR5819.)
Additionally, the County failed to proceed in a manner required by law by violating CEQA in a
15
number of ways. First, since this is a new project that has never been analyzed previously under CEQA,
16
it was inappropriate for the county to prepare a subsequent MND under section 21166 of CEQA. A
17
subsequent MND may only be used for a later project that is essentially the same project as was
18
analyzed in a prior MND, and where only minor changes are proposed. (Sierra Club v. County of
19
Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1320.) The Project is not essentially the same project as the
20
project that was evaluated in the prior MNDs because those documents do not evaluate any of the
21
39,270 square-feet of warehouse structures or expanded printing operations allowed by the new Project.
Rather than an MND, the County was required to prepare an EIR because a fair argument can be made
22
based on substantial evidence in the record that the Project will have significant public service, fire
23
24
hazard, and land use and planning impacts.

Second, even if the Project could be construed as essentially the same project as those
25
previously analyzed in 2004 and 2008, and therefore analyzed under section 21166 of CEQA, the
26
SMND must still be set aside. The County abused its discretion by certifying the SMND and approving
27
the Project even under the more deferential substantial evidence standard because the Countys
28
conclusion that the Project will not result in significant public service, fire hazard, and land use and
2
planning impacts is not supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, the County violated CEQA by
improperly piecemealing the Ratna Ling Project into three CEQA documents and over one hundred
permits, taking advantage of environmental exceptions and lesser CEQA review for smaller projects.
3
4
The County also violated CEQA by including 39,270 square feet of warehouse tents in the baseline,
rather than including them as part of the Project, and in doing so masking the true impacts of the Project.
In approving the Project, the County failed to proceed in a manner required by law. An EIR is
required to analyze the Projects significant impacts and develop appropriate mitigation measures.
Accordingly, the Countys approval of the Project, associated approval of the SMND, and adoption of
CEQA findings must be set aside, and the County should be ordered to prepare an EIR.
II.
10
11
FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
A.
The 2004 Use Permit.
The Ratna Ling Site is located at 35755 and 36000 Hauser Bridge Road in Cazadero, on
approximately 120 acres of land in the rural coastal hills of Sonoma County on land zoned for Resources
12
and Rural Development (RRD). (AR109; AR994.) In 2004, Ratna Ling purchased and remodeled a
13
14
guest ranch known as Timber Hill Ranch. (AR4596.) Prior to purchasing the property, Ratna Ling first
applied for a use permit on March 8, 2004. (AR4596.) The Sonoma County Permit and Resource
15
Management Department (PRMD) either rejected this proposal or it was withdrawn. Ratna Ling
16
purchased the property, and on April 15, 2004, submitted a new use permit application for a printing
17
facility ancillary to a newly created religious retreat center, Ratna Ling. (AR4596.)
18
On September 9, 2004, the Sonoma County Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) approved a
19
Use Permit (UPE04-0032) (2004 Use Permit) and adopted a mitigated negative declaration (2004
20
MND) for the Buddhist retreat center with an accessory printing facility. (AR37.) The BZA approved
21
the use permit in 2004,finding that the small printing operation was ancillary to the primary use of the
property as a Buddhist retreat center. (AR13.) The 2004 Use Permit allowed Ratna Ling to construct a
22
new 18,750 square foot printing facility in which to operate a press, a collator, a binder, and a cutter.
23
24
(AR5985.) The 2004 Use Permit limited the maximum number of workers allowed in the press building
to 27 (AR7), and production of texts was estimated at 100,000 books per year. (AR4612; AR5985.)
25
The printing facility was considered a satellite location for the much larger Dharma Press, which had
26
been located in an industrial area in Berkeley, California for 30 years. (AR7468) According to its
27
website, Dharma Publishing is the largest Tibetan Buddhist press in the world. (AR5812.)
28
Once the 2004 Use Permit was approved, the first construction that took place was the 18,750
3
square foot printing building, which has been in operation since August 2005. (AR2156; AR9509.) The
retreat center did not begin its operations until February 21, 2006, when eight retreat cabins were
constructed. (AR9509.)
3
B.
Piecemeal Expansion of Ratna Ling.
For the past ten years, Ratna Ling has dramatically expanded their printing operations well
beyond the equipment described in the 2004 permit and Ratna Lings application, obtaining a series of
permits that were never reviewed under CEQA. 2 After the Ratna Ling printing facility was built and
began operating in 2005, Ratna Ling began moving additional equipment into the printing facility from
Dharma Presss industrial space in Berkeley.
Likely in anticipation of the transition of Dharma Publishing from Berkeley to Ratna Ling, in
10
2006, Ratna Ling proposed a 95,000 square foot building to be used as a sacred text treasury at the
11
site. (AR4755.) PRMD rejected the proposal as inappropriate in an RRD zone, noting that Ratna Lings
use permit allows the printing press and 18,000 sf of storage space, which we consider about the limit
12
of what is reasonable for an accessory use. (AR6742.)

13
14
In 2006, Ratna Ling moved the entire Dharma Publishing operation from Berkeley to Ratna
Ling, including five additional presses. (AR7468; AR8030 AR12328.) Since 2006, all of Dharma
15
Publishing printing has occurred at Ratna Ling. (AR7468; AR8030.) With all of Dharma Press printing
16
taking place at Ratna Ling, and PRMDs rejection of the 95,000 square foot sacred text treasury, Ratna
17
Ling soon ran out of room to store printed materials. To manage, on February 26, 2008, Ratna Ling
18
filed an application requesting a general plan amendment, special area policy, and use permit to
19
construct two large underground warehouse caves totaling 90,000 square feet to store the texts that were
20
being printed on site, and to add an exhibition hall with an 800 person capacity. (AR37.)
While waiting for approval of its cave and exhibition hall plan, in 2008, the PRMD granted
21
Ratna Lings request for zoning permits allowing 39,270 square feet of temporary book storage tent
22
warehouses to be erected at Ratna Ling. (AR37-38.) On March 26, 2008, PRMD approved a zoning
23
permit (ZPE08-0074) to allow Ratna Ling to construct two temporary storage structures of 2,870 and
24
25
2
26
27
28
Only 20 days after approval of the 2004 use permit, Ratna Ling wrote a letter to Dwayne Starnes of
PRMD (September 30, 2004) informing him they were increasing the main electrical service to the press
building from 800 to 1,000 amps to allow for future growth. (AR5871.) Ratna Ling also requested
an exemption from a ground fault system requirement because this press will print 20 hour a day for 10
months each year despite only being permitted at 15 hours of printing each day. (AR5871.)
4
6,000 square feet in size to store texts being printed on site. (Id.) The following month, PRMD revised
its approval of Zoning Permit ZPE08-0074 to allow two additional temporary warehouse tents to store
the texts that were being printed on site. (AR38.) Ratna Ling refers to the tent warehouses as the
3
4
sacred text storage structures. (See, e.g. AR6920.) These new tents have a footprint of 14,400 and
16,000 square feet, and are 40 feet high. (AR38.) Unlike a regular warehouse, the warehouse tents are
structures that are covered by a fabric membrane. (AR44.) The tents were supposed to be temporary,
and the zoning permit expired after two years, but was approved by PRMD for a one-year extension on
March 25, 2011. (Id.) The permit expired on March 25, 2012 (AR38), and the 39,270 square feet of
warehouse storage has remained at Ratna Ling illegally since then. (AR7324-7330.) No public hearing
or CEQA review was conducted by the County in approving the temporary tents. (AR1073, AR2160.)
10
11
12
In addition, Ratna Ling also made the following additional expansions:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
In August 2006, Ratna Ling added a new 2,050 square foot meditation center, rather than
housing it within the existing 13,395 square foot lodge as originally proposed. (Compare
AR60 and AR4598-9; AR4601.)
In August 2006, Ratna Ling also added a new 2,010 square foot conference center to the
library. (AR60.)
In November 2006, Ratna Ling submitted a proposal for a new residential senior care
center, which PRMD determined was a new use that required a new zoning permit.
(AR6042-44.)
In February 2006, Ratna Ling received a permit and built a new detached barn.
(AR6696.)
In November 2006, Ratna Ling informed PRMD that Ratna Ling was proposing a 9,900
square foot wellness center based on the inherited permit for a 2,500 square foot spa
facility. (AR4600; AR6042-43.)
In 2007, Ratna Ling obtained a permit to add a covered loading area to the press
building, which was ultimately used for a new conveyer belt and binding system, not as a
loading dock. (AR5858.) This expanded the press building from 18,750 to 21,000
square feet. (AR37.)
In March 2009, Ratna Ling again increased electrical service to the printing facility, this
time from 1000 to 1600 amps. (AR6690.)
24
C. The Printing Facility is not Ancillary to the Retreat Center, Dwarfing the Retreat
Components Both in Terms of Number of Personnel, Facilities and Activity at the Site,
and Being the Raison Dtre for Ratna Lings Presence There.
25
The printing facility is staffed by volunteers and long-term residents, some of whom go through
23
26
27
training to operate the presses, assemble books, and carry out other steps of the book printing and
storage process. The workers live on site in cabins and seasonal campgrounds. (AR13;
AR4599;AR4601.) They work long days, usually extending from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. six days a week.
28
(AR 61.) This Project will increase the number of workers allowed in the press building from 27 to a
5
maximum of 80, and will increase the maximum number of people allowed at Ratna Ling from 67 to
122. (AR36-37.) Under these conditions, 65 percent of people at the Ratna Ling site could be working
in the press building at any one time.

3
4
The Ratna Ling site consists of 81,194 square feet of buildings and facilities. (AR60-61.) Of
that 81,194 square feet, 60,504 square feet are dedicated to the printing facility and the warehouse tents.
(AR36.) The printing operation therefore occupies 74 percent of the developed footprint of the Ratna
Ling site compared to 26 percent occupied by other facilities. This does not take into account the
additional buildings that are used to house the printing volunteers, or the dining facilities and other
components of the retreat center that also support the printing operation by feeding workers and
providing office space to Dharma Publishing.

In 2012, there were 1,381 guests who stayed at the Ratna Ling retreat facility. (AR4806.) Ratna
10
11
Ling calculated that in 2012, Ratna Ling had a total of 5,301 retreat days, where one person per day
equals a retreat day. (Id.) Applying the same analysis to printing operations, 9,855 print days occur at
12
the site based on a maximum occupancy of the printing building of 27 persons (printing 365 days per
13
14
15
year x 27 persons = 9,855 print days). Ratna Ling now seeks to increase the maximum number of
workers in the print building to 80 for June and July and 60 for August through May, which would result
in 18,240 printing days per year, far exceeding the retreats activity.
16
D.
17
Currently at issue is a Master Use Permit (PLP08-0021) for the Ratna Ling Buddhist Monastery
The Project.
18
and accessory printing operations, significantly expanding the retreat center and printing operations at
19
Ratna Ling. The Project includes the following features, not included in the 2004 MND:
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
An increase in the number of printing presses allowed from 1 to 6;

Elimination of the current limitation on printing of 100,000 books per year;
An increase of the maximum occupancy of the press building from 27 to 80 persons (AR111);
Permanent book storage in four tent structures with a combined 39,270 sq. ft. of space. The
Project will chage the status of these structures from temporary to permanent (AR110);
Production of non-textual sacred objects in addition to printing texts (AR110);
Book production traffic of one 24-foot long truck round-trip per day, Mon. through Sat.
(AR111);
An increase to the maximum occupancy of the Ratna Ling Site from 67 to 122 persons (AR110);
A seasonal campground (May through October) with eight tent structures to be built on wooden
platforms with electrical hook-ups, with a maximum occupancy of 27 persons (AR111);
Construction of a new 3,000 square foot five-bedroom residential dwelling with a maximum
occupancy of 12 persons (AR110);
28
6
1
2
3
Construction of four new residential storage buildings totaling 4,080 square feet to service the
residential cabins (AR111).
The Project also includes the following features that were analyzed in the 2004 MND, but were
not built, and are therefore not existing conditions on the ground:
Construction of five new cottages, each approximately 1,010 square feet, for a total of 5,050
square feet in new cottage construction, and expansion and conversion of an existing storage
building into another cottage (AR111);
Completion of a partially constructed Senior Center, which is approximately 5,900 square feet.
The foundation, driveway, parking and major support structures have already been constructed
(AR110).
In effect, the Project will double the size of the industrial printing operation at Ratna Ling, and
4
5
9
10
11
12
will legalize Ratna Lings previous illegal operations.

III.
LEGAL BACKGROUND.
A.
General Plan and Land Use.
Under California law, a general plan serves as a charter for future development (Lesher
Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 54), and embodies fundamental
13
land use decisions that guide the future growth and development of cities and counties. (City of Santa
14
Ana v. City of Garden Grove (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 521, 532.) The general plan has been aptly
15
described as the constitution for all future developments within a city or county. (Families Unafraid
16
to Uphold Rural El Dorado County (FUTURE) v. Bd. of Supervisors of El Dorado County (1998) 62
17
Cal.App.4th 1334, 1335.) The propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and
18
development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements. (Citizens of
19
Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 570.) The consistency doctrine has been
20
described as the linchpin of Californias land use and development laws; it is the principal which
21
22
infuses the concept of planned growth with the force of law. (Corona-Norco Unified School Dist.v.
City of Corona (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 985, 994.) An agency acts ultra vires when it approves a use
permit that is inconsistent with the General Plan. (Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras
23
(1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1184.)

24
The Ratna Ling Project is located on land designated as Resources and Rural Development
25
(RRD) in the Sonoma County General Plan 2020. (AR46-47.) The RRD land use designation is
26
meant to protect lands for timber, geothermal and mineral resource production and for natural resource
27
conservation. (Sonoma County General Plan 2020 (GP), p. LU-55 (a copy of Sonoma Countys
28
General Plan 2020 Land Use Element is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Rebecca Davis in
7
Support of Petitioners Request for Judicial Notice).) In order to protect natural resources, the RRD
category only allows residences at very low densities because within RRD areas, there is a lack of
infrastructure, greater distance from public services, poor access, conflicts with resource conservation
3
and production, and significant physical constraints and hazards. (GP, p. LU-55.)
B.
California Environmental Quality Act.
The foremost principle in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read
so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the
statutory language. (Cmtys. for a Better Envt v. Calif. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109.)
CEQA requires that a lead agency prepare and certify an EIR for any discretionary project that may have
a significant effect on the environment. (21002.1(a), 21100(a), 21151(a); 14 Cal. Code Reg. (CCR)
10
15064(a)(1), (f)(1), 15367.)

The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124
11
Cal.App.4th 903, 926-27; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1974) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 304.) The
12
EIR is an environmental alarm bell whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to
13
14
environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return. (Bakersfield
Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1220.) The EIR also
15
functions as a document of accountability, intended to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that
16
the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action. (Laurel
17
Heights Improvements Assn v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process
18
protects not only the environment but also informed self-government. (Pocket Protectors, 124
19
Cal.App.4th at 927.)
1.
20
Levels of review under CEQA
When an agency considers the environmental effects of a proposed project, CEQA provides three
21
options. The agency must prepare and certify the completion of an EIR if the project may have a
22
significant effect on the environment. (21151(a) [emphasis added].) If the agency determines that the
23
24
project will not have a significant effect on the environment, it prepares a negative declaration.
(21080(c)(1); 14 CCR 15064(f)(3).) Finally, if the project has potentially significant environmental
25
effects, but those effects will be reduced to less than significant with the imposition of mitigation
26
measures that the project proponent has agreed to undertake, then CEQA allows the agency to prepare a
27
mitigated negative declaration. ( 21080(c)(2); 14 CCR 15064(f)(2).)
28
//
8
1
2
i.
Where a new project is proposed, the fair argument standard applies

to determine the need for an EIR.
When a new project is reviewed, an agencys determination of whether an EIR is required is
reviewed under the fair argument test. (Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004,
1016-1017; Sierra Club, 6 Cal.App.4th at 1316.) The fair argument test is derived from section
21151, which requires an EIR on any project which may have a significant effect on the environment.
(6 Cal.App.4th at 1316-1317.) That section mandates preparation of an EIR in the first instance
7
8
whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have
significant environmental impact. (Id.) If there is substantial evidence of such impact, contrary
evidence is not adequate to support a decision to dispense with an EIR. (Id.) Section 21151 creates a
9
10
low threshold requirement for initial preparation of an EIR and reflects a preference for resolving doubts
in favor of environmental review when the question is whether any such review is warranted. (Id.)
11
For example, if there is a disagreement among experts over the significance of an effect, the agency is
12
to treat the effect as significant and prepare an EIR. (Id.)
13
Substantial evidence, for purposes of the fair argument standard, includes fact, a reasonable
14
assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact. (21080(e)(1) (emphasis
15
added); Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista
16
(CREED) (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 327, 331.) In the context of reviewing a negative declaration,
17
18
neither the lead agency nor a court may weigh conflicting substantial evidence to determine whether
an EIR must be prepared in the first instance. (Id.) Where such substantial evidence is presented,
evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with preparation of an EIR
19
20
and adopt a negative declaration, because it could be fairly argued that the project might have a
significant environmental impact. (Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at 310 (citation omitted).)
21
Whether a fair argument exists is a question of law that the court reviews de novo, with a
22
preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review. (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th
23
at 927.) In reviewing a decision to prepare a negative declaration rather than an EIR, courts do not
24
defer to the agencys determination. (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 332;
25
Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma, 6 Cal.App.4th at 1318.)
26
27
28
ii.
Project previously reviewed under CEQA.
After a project has been subjected to environmental review and an EIR or MND has been
certified, an agency may only prepare a supplemental mitigated negative declaration if none of the
conditions triggering preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (14 CCR 15162.) By contrast, a
9
subsequent or supplemental EIR is required to be prepared and a subsequent MND or addendum is

inadequate in any of the following instances: (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which
will require major revisions of the environmental impact report; (b) Substantial changes occur with
3
4
respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major
revisions in the environmental impact report; (c) New information, which was not known and could not
have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes
available. (21166; 14 CCR 15162.) A subsequent negative declaration is appropriate only if none of
the statutory triggers for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR exists. (14 CCR
15162(b).) A subsequent MND will be upheld only if supported by substantial evidence. (Abbatti v.
Imperial Irrig. Dist. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 650, 675.)
10
11
A subsequent MND may only be used for a later project that is essentially the same project
as was analyzed in the prior MND, and minor changes are proposed. (Sierra Club, 6 Cal.App.4th at
1320.) Whether a project is new or a change to an existing project is a question of law, that the court
12
reviews de novo. (Save Our Neighborhood v. Lishman (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1299, 1297; Lincoln
13
14
Place Tenants Assn v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1503; Assn for a Cleaner
Envt v. Yosemite Cmty. College Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 629, 637.)
15
3.
Project description, piecemealing, and baseline.
16
The CEQA document must accurately describe the proposed project. (14 CCR 15071(a).) An
17
accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient
18
[CEQA document]. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193.) Thus,
19
CEQA mandates that environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large
20
project into many little ones each with a minimal potential impact on the environment which
21
cumulatively may have disastrous consequences. (Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-84
[superseded by statute on other grounds]; City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d
22
1438, 1452.)
23
24
Every CEQA document must start from an articulated baseline. The CEQA baseline is the
set of environmental conditions against which to compare a projects anticipated impacts. A lead
25
agencys environmental review under CEQA must include a description of the physical environmental
26
conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced,
27
from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the
28
baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant. (14
10
CCR 15125(a); Cmtys. for a Better Envt v. So. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (CBE v. SCAQMD)
(2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 320 n.5 (14 CCR 15125(a) applies to negative declarations and initial studies);
see also, Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124-125.)
3
4
The baseline does not include the project. By incorporating portions of the proposed project into the
baseline, the agency in effect grants a unilateral exemption from CEQA for that activity. (See, e.g.
County of Inyo, 71 Cal.App.3d at 195-97.) A temporary project cannot form the baseline for a similar
but permanent project. (Apartment Assn of Greater Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 90
Cal.App.4th 1162, 1169; Chamberlin v. City of Palo Alto, (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 181, 187.)
IV.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.
The Sonoma County Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) adopted the 2004 MND and
10
approved the 2004 Use Permit on September 9, 2004. (AR37.) The PRMD Director approved a minor
11
modification of the 2004 Use Permit in August 2007 to allow an expansion of the printing facility from
18,750 to 21,234 square feet. (AR37; AR6694; AR10635.)
12
On August 1, 2007, PRMD approved Zoning Permit ZPE07-0164 allowing Ratna Ling to
13
14
construct a residential care facility for up to six people. (AR37.)

Also in August 2007, Ratna Ling applied for Use Permit UPE07-0089 to construct a 20 acre-foot
15
water reservoir and a modification of the 2004 Use Permit to increase the size of the wellness center
16
from 2,500 to 9,500 sq. ft. and to change its location. (AR4576; AR4601; AR5376.) PRMD approved a
17
mitigated negative declaration (the 2008 MND) for UPE07-0089 on August 22, 2008. (AR38.)
18
On February 26, 2008, Ratna Ling filed Application PLP08-0021 requesting a general plan
19
amendment, special area policy, and a use permit to construct two large underground caves for text
20
storage, and an exhibition hall. (AR37.) On February 20, 2009, Ratna Ling requested that PRMD hold
21
off on any further review of PLP08-0021, and .on March 15, 2011, Ratna Ling submitted a revised
application for PLP08-0021 and a revised proposal statement for a master use permit (2011 Project).
22
(AR38.)
23
24
On March 26, 2008, PRMD approved Zoning Permit ZPE08-074 to allow construction of two
temporary storage structures of 2,870 and 6,000 square feet, to store texts. (AR37-38.) PRMD then
25
revised its approval of ZPE08-074 to allow two additional temporary storage structures, this time of
26
14,400 and 16,000 square feet, on April 21, 2008. (AR38.)
27
28
On February 14, 2012, PRMD released a mitigated negative declaration for the 2011 Project
(2012 MND). (Id.) On April 5, 2012 and June 7, 2012, the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA)
11
conducted public hearings on the 2012 MND and the 2011 Project. (Id.)
Petitioners and other member of the public submitted oral and written comments. (AR3800-
3874; AR3950-3953; AR3964-3978.) On June 7, 2012, the BZA adopted the 2012 MND and approved
3
4
the 2011 Project. (AR38.) Petitioners timely appealed the BZAs decision (Petitioners Appeal).
(AR39.)
Prior to a hearing date being set for Petitioners Appeal, on March 26, 2013, Ratna Ling again
submitted an updated proposal application for PLP08-0021. (AR39.) On February 28, 2014, PRMD
released the subsequent mitigated negative declaration at issue in this action. (AR39.) According to the
PRMD, the SMND supersedes the 2012 MND. (AR39.)

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors held a hearing on Petitioners Appeal and the SMND
9
10
11
on April 8, 2014. (AR39.) On June 24, 2014, the Board reopened the hearing, and ultimately certified
the SMND and approved the Project by a 3-2 vote. (AR50.)
Petitioners, members of the public, and other state and local agencies brought the deficiencies
12
raised herein to the Countys attention during the administrative proceedings for the Project, submitting
13
14
extensive written comments (AR7175-7245; AR8428-8615; AR8622-8651; AR8654-8818; AR88299207; AR9291-9297), and June 24, 2014 (AR12051-12063; AR12233-12212283; AR12385-12537) and
15
appearing at various hearings held by the County. (See AR3800-74; AR3964-78; AR4112-89; 4366-
16
4421.)
17
V.
LEGAL STANDARD.
18
A.
19
A determination that a project is consistent with a general plan is subject to an abuse of
20
21
General Plan Consistency.
discretion standard of review, and should be overturned if findings are not supported by substantial
evidence. (FUTURE, 62 Cal.App.4th at 1334; Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County
Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 357.) Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent
22
has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings,
23
24
or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (CCP 1094.5(b); Napa Citizens, 91 Cal.App.4th at
356-57.) [A] governing bodys conclusion that a particular project is consistent with the relevant
25
general plan carries a strong presumption of regularity that can be overcome only by a showing of abuse
26
of discretion. (Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 933, 940.) The Court may neither
27
substitute our view for that of the city council, nor reweigh conflicting evidence presented to that body.
28
(Id.)
12
B.
California Environmental Quality Act.
The court reviews the Countys compliance with CEQA by evaluating whether there was a
2
prejudicial abuse of discretion either by: (1) failing to proceed in the manner required by law, or (2)
3
4
reaching a decision that is not supported by substantial evidence. (21168.5.) Under CEQA,
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. (14 CCR 15384(a).) A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if the failure
to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation,
thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. (Id.)

Judicial review of these two types of error differs. The court determines de novo whether the
9
10
11
agency has employed the correct procedures, scrupulously enforcing all legislatively mandated CEQA
requirements. (Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 131; Vineyard Area
Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435.) As in this
12
case, a claim that the lead agency approved a project with potentially significant environmental effects
13
14
before preparing and considering an EIR for the project is predominantly one of improper procedure to
be decided by the courts independently. The claim goes not to the validity of the agencys factual
15
conclusions but to the required timing of its actions. (City of Irvine v. County of Orange (2013) 221
16
Cal.App.4th 846, 854; POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 718.)
17
Because the County failed to conduct the proper CEQA review of the Project before approving the
18
Project, the courts review is de novo.
19
VI.
ARGUMENT
A.
20
The Ratna Ling Project is inconsistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code.
The industrial nature of the Project conflicts with various provisions of the RRD Land Use
21
Element and the implementing Zoning Code that serve to guide development and protect and maintain
22
important natural resources in the County. The Project is inconsistent with the RRD General Plan land
23
24
use and zoning designations because a 60,000 square foot industrial press operation is not a permitted
use under such classifications nor is there any substantial evidence to support the Countys
25
determination that the printing operation is merely ancillary to the sites retreat center.
26
//
27
//
28
13
1
2
1.
The Project conflicts with mandatory policies of the Land Use Element of the
Sonoma County General Plan.
The Projects industrial printing operation, including 39,270 square feet of permanent industrial
warehouse tents, is inconstant with the General Plans RRD land use designation, and the Countys
conclusion that the Project is consistent is not supported by substantial evidence.
5
6
7
8
The General Plan RRD land use designation is meant to protect lands for timber, geothermal
and mineral resource production and for natural resource conservation. (Id.) In order to protect natural
resources, the RRD category only allows residences at very low densities because within RRD areas,
there is a lack of infrastructure, greater distance from public services, poor access, conflicts with
resource conservation and production, and significant physical constraints and hazards. (Id.) The
9
10
General Plan states that one of the intents of the RRD designation is to [p]rotect against intensive
development of lands constrained by geologic hazards, steep slopes, poor soils or water, fire and flood
11
prone areas, biotic and scenic areas, and other constraints. (Id.) Another intent of the RRD land use
12
categories is the [p]rotection of county residents from proliferation of growth in areas where there are
13
inadequate public services and infrastructure (GP, p. LU-56.) Permitted uses for RRD land include:
14
Single family dwellings, resource management and enhancement activities including but not
limited to the management of timber, geothermal and aggregate resources, fish and wildlife
habitat, and watershed. Livestock farming, crop production, firewood harvesting and public and
private schools, hospitals, and places of religious worship are included. Lodging, campgrounds,
and similar recreational and visitor serving uses provided that they shall not be inconsistent with
the purpose and intent of this category.
15
16
17
18
(Id.) The County acted ultra vires by approving the Project. A 60,000 square foot industrial scale
19
printing press facility and warehouses are inconsistent with the fundamental, mandatory, and clear
20
21
nature of this policy.

In addition, in 2008, PRMD found that Policy LU-6(e) was applicable to Ratna Ling (AR4893),
and therefore, to be consistent with the General Plan, the Project shall meet the following criteria:
22
23
24
25
26
(6) Adequate public services and infrastructure must be available for the use, without inducing
unplanned growth....
(9) The size, scale and design of the use shall be in keeping with the rural character of the area
in which it is located. (GP, p. LU-30.)
The Project is inconsistent with the General Plan because, as the District has made clear, this
Project will endanger county residents by allowing industrial growth where there are inadequate public
27
services. (AR12702-11.) Additionally, because the Ratna Ling site is on land that has a high fire
28
danger, the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan intent to limit development on land in fire prone
14
areas. (GP, p. LU-55.) Even with the much smaller operation in 2004, County staff had concerns about
the compatibility of a printing operation on land designated RRD:
2
3
4
5
6
Although the printing facility is intended for noncommercial purposes, staff has some concern
about the compatibility of this relatively large scale printing facility (100,000 books per year)
with the purposes of the Resource and Rural Development General Plan land use designation and
RRD zoning district Printed materials are to be distributed on an international level rather than
just serving a local or regional need. To approve the Use Permit, a finding must be made
indicating that the printing facility is an ancillary use to the retreat facility. The press facility
would not be allowed if it was not ancillary to the primary use.
(AR 806.) The size and scale of Ratna Lings printing operations are not in keeping with the rural
character of the area in which it is located.
9
10
11
The County made no findings that 60,000 square feet of industrial printing operations and
warehouse tents are consistent with the intent of RRD to [p]rotect[] county residents from proliferation
of growth in areas where there is inadequate public services and infrastructure (GP, p. LU-56.)
Rather than providing facts and an analysis of the consistency of this Project with the General Plan, the
12
County relies on the 2004 determination that the 2004 Use Permit was consistent with the 2004 General
13
14
Plan. (AR46-47.) This ignores the many expansions that have taken place in the 10 year interim period,
and ignores the tripling in size of the printing operations at Ratna Ling, and ultimately fails to support its
15
conclusion that this Project is consistent with the Sonoma County General Plan. The Court should
16
overturn the Countys finding that the Project is consistent with the General Plan because the Countys
17
findings are not supported by substantial evidence, and because the Project frustrates the Countys
18
fundamental, mandatory, and clear land use policies.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2.
The Project is inconsistent with the Sonoma County Zoning Code.
Industrial printing operations are also not authorized on land zoned RRD. The purpose of the
Resources and Rural Development Zone is:
to implement the provisions of the resources and rural development land use category of the
General Plan, namely to provide protection of lands needed for commercial timber production,
geothermal production, aggregate resources production; lands needed for protection of
watershed, fish and wildlife habitat, biotic resources, and for agricultural production activities
that are not subject to all of the policies contained in the agricultural resources element of the
General Plan. The resources and rural development district is also intended to allow very low
density residential development and recreational and visitor-serving uses where compatible with
resource use and available public services.
(Sonoma County Zoning Code (Zoning Code) 26-10-005( a copy of Article 10 of Sonoma Countys
Zoning Code is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Rebecca Davis in Support of Petitioners
28
Request for Judicial Notice.)
15
Zoning Code section 26-10-010, entitled Permitted uses, lists the 36 uses permitted on land
zoned RRD without a use permit. One of those 36 permitted uses is found in subsection (p), which
allows for [a]ccessory buildings and uses appurtenant to the operation of the permitted uses. (Zoning
3
4
5
Code 26-10-010(p).) In other words, the zoning code allows an accessory building or use that is
appurtenant to one of the other 35 remaining permitted uses.
In a separate section, Section 26-10-020, entitled Uses permitted with a use permit, the
Zoning Code lists the 45 other uses that are permitted only with a use permit. One of those 45 uses that
are permitted with a use permit is found in subsection (v), which allows the county to issue a use permit
for [n]oncommercial clubs and lodges, golf courses and driving ranges, but not including miniature golf
courses; except that such uses are not permitted on land subject to a Williamson Act contract. Unlike
10
11
Zoning Code section 26-10-010, the uses listed in section 26-10-020 do not include an accessory use
provision.
Ratna Lings 2004 Use Permit was issued by likening the Ratna Ling Retreat Center to a non-
12
commercial club or lodge. (AR47.) It is therefore not a Permitted Use under Zoning Code 26-1013
14
010, but rather is a Use permitted with a use permit under 26-10-020. As a result, the printing
operations, including the storage tents, cannot properly be deemed an accessory use to the retreat
15
center. There is no provision in the zoning code that allows an accessory use for a use only allowed
16
with a use permit.
17
Section 010 allows for an accessory use to any of the permitted uses. Section 020, in contrast
18
does not. Indeed, section 020 does not allow for accessory buildings or uses, except where specifically
19
stated. The only use under 020 that allows for an accessory structure is subsection (ll), which allows a
20
use permit for Bed and breakfast inns, containing not more than five (5) guest rooms (Zoning Code
21
26-10-020(ll).) That subsection and no other subsection under 26-10-020 allows for one
accessory structure. (Id.) The provision for non-commercial clubs makes no such allowance for
22
accessory structures. (Zoning Code 26-10-020(v).) The court must construe zoning ordinances
23
24
25
26
27
reasonably, considering the object to be attained and the general structure of the ordinance as a whole.
(Fairview Neighbors v. County of Ventura (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 238, 246 (citing Markey v. Danville
Warehouse & Lbr., Inc. (1953) 119 Cal.App.2d 1, 5).)
Nonetheless, the County made the finding that the press operations, including the 39,270 square
feet of printing storage tents, was allowed as an accessory use to the Ratna Ling Retreat Center.
28
16
(AR47-48.) In so finding, the County committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion and failed to proceed
in a manner required by law by approving a use permit that is inconsistent with the Zoning Code.
3.
3
4
Ratna Lings printing operations are not an accessory use.
Even if an accessory use were allowed to be permitted for the Retreat Center, the County still
abused its discretion and failed to proceed in a lawful manner because based on all quantitative
measures, it is clear that printing is not ancillary to the retreat use. Accessory use is defined in section
26-02-140 of the Zoning Code as a use of land or a building that is related to and subordinate to the
primary use of the land or building located on the same lot. (Zoning Code 26-02-140 (emph. added).)
Using any meaningful quantitative measure, the printing operations are not subordinate to the retreat
use, and therefore the County abused its discretion by approving the Project by finding the expanded
10
11
printing operation including the storage tents to be an accessory use.

The size of the printing operation has tripled in size since the 2004 Permit was issued. Even
when considering the much smaller printing operations for the 2004 Use Permit, PRMD staff was
12
hesitant about the compatibility within an RRD zone, noting in its Staff Report that:
13
14
15
16
17
18
Although the printing facility is intended for noncommercial purposes, staff has
some concern about the compatibility of this relatively large scale printing facility
(100,000 books per year) with the purposes of the Resource and Rural Development
General Plan land use designation and RRD zoning district. Printed materials are
to be distributed on an international level rather than just serving a local or regional
need. To approve the Use Permit, a finding must be made indicating that the
printing facility is an ancillary use to the retreat facility. The press facility would
not be allowed if it was not ancillary to the primary use.
(AR806.) Indeed in 2006, the Deputy Director of PRMD called the original 2004 printing operations-
19
20
21
including one press and 18,000 square feet of space for printing and storage the limit of what is
reasonable for an accessory use. (AR4124.)
The Project increases the maximum number of people allowed in the printing facility from 27 to
22
80 during June and July and to 60 during the rest of the year. (AR51.) With the increased occupancy of
23
the overall site increasing to 122 (AR51), during June and July, 65% of total site occupants will be
24
allowed to occupy the printing facility at any one time. Even during the rest of the year, 49% of total
25
site occupants are allowed in the printing facility at one time. These numbers only represent the number
26
of people in the printing building itself, and do not include any people that are working on text
27
28
production or distribution in the 40,000 square foot warehouse tents.

When it issued the 2004 Use Permit, the County was informed of only a single large printing
press capable of printing the 100,000 books limited in the permit. (AR5979.) The list of equipment
17
identifying the one press was included as an attachment to the 2004 Use Permit. (AR4602.) Now there
are six presses at the facility. (AR12328.) In 2004, any book storage was to be included in the 18,750
sq. ft. printing building. (AR5998.) Now there are four warehouses covering 39,270 sq. ft. (AR5809.)
3
4
The modest printing operation approved in 2004, as the County emphasized, was pushing the limits of
the term ancillary. (AR4755.) The Project goes well beyond any reasonable interpretation of an
ancillary use. If the County had its doubts the small 2004 printing operation was an accessory, there can
be no doubt that the industrial scale printing facility now operating at the site is not a mere accessory to
the modest, not necessarily even religious, retreat functions offered in other buildings at the site. By the
reasoning of the 2004 permit, the printing operation can no longer be said to be an ancillary use. 3
The PRMD Deputy Director Barrett testified, when accessory uses are within another building,
9
10
11
PRMD usually uses a rule of thumb of 10-15% of the floor area as a normal standard for an accessory
use. (AR4102.) In order to make its findings that printing was an accessory use, the County had to rely
on a misleading calculation which counted all land not within the printing facility or warehouses
12
including inaccessible undeveloped land as part of the retreat center, rather than comparing the size of
13
14
the printing buildings to the size of the retreat buildings. (AR48-49; AR9165-9166.) The printing
facility and warehouses are clearly not ancillary to undeveloped land on the entire 122-acre parcel. As
15
explained by the land use expert Peter Dellavalle, the proper comparison should have been based on the
16
size of the printing-related buildings compared to the size of the retreat-related buildings because open
17
space is a uniquely distinct land use category and should be excluded from an evaluation of the use of
18
the built environment. (AR9165-9166.) According to Mr. Dellavalles calculations, the Project would
19
result in 49% of building area used by the printing operation, 38% by retreat use, and 13% for staff
20
housing, which is common to both uses. (AR9165-9166.)

Many of the Supervisors were concerned with PRMDs misleading calculations and lack of
21
consistency in its definition of accessory, as demonstrated during the Board of Supervisors Hearing,
22
when Supervisor Zane attempted to get clarification from Deputy Director Barrett:
23
SUPERVISOR ZANE: How --how do you determine that this is accessory? Because it seems
like the square footage is far greater in terms of the printing and the storage versus the retreat.
How did you determine that? Or the BZA [Board of Zoning Adjustments].
BARRETT: The -- that is the crux of the matter, and the difficult question is how do you
24
25
26
27
28
According to Ratna Lings website, [t]he key focus of Ratna Ling is the Tibetan text preservation
project organized and carried out under the guidance of the Head Lama through the Yeshe De project
and Dharma Publishing. Ratna Ling will also host a health and wellness center. (AR5819.)
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
determine accessory use. In those cases it has to be determined that its incidental and
subordinate to the primary use of the land. In this case, because its a religious land use and they
have demonstrated that theyre its part of their religious practice to have community service,
and their community service is tied to the press, they demonstrated, through that argument to the
BZA, that its part of the religious land use and accessory to their retreat function. That thats
very different. Religious land uses are kind of different than your standard, you know,
commercial facility where you might say, you know, 15 percent of the floor area is devoted to
this accessory or ancillary use. In this case, its integral to their religious practice.
SUPERVISOR ZANE: So youre saying that its kind of waived when it comes to religious
land use? I mean, can anybody set up some type of factory and say its for religious purposes and
have that waived? I mean, thats the question.
BARRETT: That is a policy call for the board, really, as to whether and how much accessory
use you would feel comfortable with on this site.
SUPERVISOR ZANE: Okay.
BARRETT: In this instance.
SUPERVISOR ZANE: So the bottom line is Im still trying to get to the footprint and the term
accessory use. Theres no real environmental analysis on the footprint in terms of the publishing
and printing versus the retreat, its just were using a terminology called accessory use and
religious land use, but Im not seeing the analysis. And thats what I'm trying to get at is if
theres any real analysis there that puts it into the accessory use.
BARRETT: Yeah. I can share with you the analysis. And the findings of the BZA was that it
was integral to their practice, and for that reason was considered accessory. At the time that the
press facility was permitted, it was an 18,000 square foot structure. The rest of the retreat, Im
not sure what the total square footage was do you remember? of the rest of the retreat and the
cabins?
SUPERVISOR ZANE: Okay. But the BZA did make a determination. I totally get that. I'm
asking for data. Im asking for scientific data that puts it into accessory use. Thats what Im
trying to determine, if theres if that analysis has been made.
BARRETT: Yeah. The analysis is really qualitative, its not quantitative. (AR4081-84.)
Even using Ratna Lings rationalization, printing is still not an accessory use. Ratna Lings
19
attorney wrote to PRMD that:

20
21
Ratna Ling has 1,381 retreat participants for a total of 5,301 retreat days in 2012. There are
more than 365 retreat days because there can be multiple retreat participants on any one date
(e.g., 10 retreat participants on one day equals 10 retreat days).
22
(AR 7806.) Using the same evaluation technique, printing days would be calculated as follows:
23
24
25
26
27
The Project allows 60 workers for 10 months (August-May):

10 months= 40 weeks x 6 days/week = 240 days x 60 workers = 14,400 printing days
The Project allows 80 workers for 2 months (June and July):
2 months= 8 weeks x 6 days/week = 48 days x 80 workers = 3,840 printing days
Total Printing Days: 18,240
As made clear by these quantitative measures, the printing operations are not subordinate to
the retreat use, and therefore the County abused its discretion by approving the Project by finding the
28
expanded printing operation including the storage tents to be an accessory use.
19
B.
The County failed to comply with CEQA.
1.
3
4
This Project is a new project because it has never previously been reviewed
under CEQA.
In the instant case, the Project is a new project that has never been previously analyzed, and
therefore must be reviewed under section 21151 of CEQA. The County relies heavily on the two prior
MNDs prepared for completely different projects in 2004 and 2008. The fundamental problem with the
7
8
Countys reliance on these prior documents is that the Project is completely different from and bears no
resemblance to the projects analyzed in the prior MNDs. What was approved in the 2004 MND was a
Buddhist retreat center with an ancillary printing facility that was completely contained within a 18,750
9
10
sq. ft. building. (AR1; AR07.) The 2004 MND did not encompass any future development and the
MND only analyzed the environmental effects of the 2004 proposal. What the County is approving now
11
is a Master Use Permit for a major printing facility on land that also happens to hold retreats. The
12
Project is not essentially the same project as was evaluated in the prior MNDs, because those
13
documents do not evaluate any of the warehouse storage space. The environmental impacts of a 60,000
14
sq. ft. printing operation have never been studied. Accordingly, the county was incorrect in preparing an
15
SMND under section 21166. The County should have subjected this new project to a full environmental
16
review under section 21151.
17
18
Since this is a new project that has never been analyzed previously under CEQA, and as
discussed below a fair argument can be made that the Project will have significant environmental
impacts, the SMND should be set aside, and an EIR prepared. But even if the Court finds that this
19
20
21
22
23
24
Project is not a new project and therefore could be reviewed under section 21166, the SMND still
must be set aside because it is not supported by substantial evidence.
2.
An EIR is required because substantial evidence in the record supports a fair

argument that the Project has significant public safety and fire impacts.
Based on CEQAs fair argument test, the County must be ordered to prepare an EIR because
substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the Project may have a significant effect
on the environment. [A] project may have a significant effect on the environment if there is a
25
reasonable possibility that it will result in a significant impact. (County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v.
26
27
28
County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1579-1580.) An effect on the environment need not be
momentous to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are not trivial. (No
Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 83.) The expert opinions of Michael Singer, former
20
Chief of the Timber Cove Fire Protection District (Fire District), and Bob Dickson, President of the
Fire District, constitute substantial evidence, which supports a fair argument that the Project may have
significant public safety and fire impacts.

3
i. Substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the

Project will have significant public safety and fire impacts.
4
5
The Fire District, a volunteer fire department, is the agency responsible for fire suppression at
and around the Ratna Ling Site. (AR134.) [I]t is the professional opinion of The Timber Cove Fire
7
8
Protection District that the approval of the Use Permit under the conditions proposed by the County both
at the April 8, 2014 Board Meeting and those proposed by the County for consideration at the June 24,
2014 Board meeting will not adequately protect the people, property and natural resources within its
9
10
District from the risk of industrial fire posed by Ratna Lings operations. (AR12702; see also,
AR4125.) The Districts conclusion is based on: 1) the Districts lack of training and equipment to fight
11
industrial fires, and 2) the tents lack of compliance with the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Resistive
12
standards. (AR12719.)
1) Limited infrastructure in RRD zones.
13
The District has stated that they do not have the capacity or equipment to fight a fire of the scale
14
15
and type associated with large printing operations and text storage. (AR12704.) Suppression of
16
industrial high piled combustible storage fires requires specialized equipment and training to fight a fire
17
18
of this type in this location. (AR1072.) In the absence of the required equipment and training, the
Project poses significant fire risks to residents, neighbors, and forests. (AR12721.) These are not
abstract risks. Wildlife fires, particularly wildland/urban interface fires, have historically occurred in
19
20
21
Sonoma County. The California Department of Fire and Forestry (CAL FIRE) has identified several
historic wildfire corridors in Sonoma County. Those corridors include: the Guerneville/Cazadero area
which experienced fires in 1923, 1951, and 1977 (AR13571.)
22
The Districts conclusion that the Project will have a significant impact stems in part from the
23
improper location of an industrial use in an RRD zone. (AR12704.) All of the Fire District is zoned
24
RRD. (AR12704.) The Countys General Plan does not permit industrial uses in RRD zones. 4 (GP, p.
25
LU-55-56.) As a result, [t]he District does not have the equipment or training to fight industrial fires
26
27
28
Indeed land is designated RRD in part because of the lack of infrastructure and public services. (Id.;
GP, LU-55-56.)
21
and hazards because until Ratna Ling there were no significant industrial operations within the
District. (AR12704)
The Fire District and the Sonoma County Fire Chief agree that it is reasonable to identify a fire
3
4
in the warehouse tents as an industrial fire. (AR4449; AR12702.) The record contains ample evidence
of the Fire Districts expert opinion that it does not have the training or equipment needed to address the
risks of the Projects industrial operations. (AR4125; AR1072; AR12702-12711.) According to Mr.
Dickson, when an industrial fire occurs, such as one that may start at Ratna Ling, a fire department in an
industrial zone would respond to the fire with Multiple Type 1 engines[;] A ladder truck[;] An
ambulance[;] A Rapid Intervention Crew[;] A Breathing Air Salvage Truck [and;]Station coverage, and
support from adjacent fire department. (AR12705.) The fire department would have the ability to pump
10
11
2,000-3,000 gallons per minute of water, and initial response times would be five minutes or less.
(AR12705.) The District, in contrast, does not have a Type 1 fire engine. (AR12705.) The engines that
the District has are designed to fight wildland fires and conventional structure fires. (AR12705.) One of
12
the Districts mutual aid neighbor fire departments does have a Type 1 fire engine, but their response
13
14
15
time to the District can range from 30 to 45 minutes, which would not adequately mitigate this impact.
(AR12705.) Even with a Type 1 engine, however, the District stated that it cannot guarantee that would
be able to suppress a fully involved industrial fire in the printing facility or storage tents. (AR12705.)
16
The County understands the danger of not having properly trained or equipped fire fighters.
17
According to the Wildfire Hazard and Risk Assessment section of the Countys own Hazard Mitigation
18
Plan (AR13566-13587), [w]hile the County generally has been receiving acceptable levels of service,
19
problems have resulted from the condition of existing equipment and matching the type of equipment
20
and staff training to the type of fire. It is clear that fire fighting responses alone cannot fully eliminate or
21
reduce the risks from wildland fires. Thus taking proactive steps to reduce the incidence of, and potential
risk from, wildland fires before they occur is essential. (AR13574.)
22
The record contains substantial evidence, including the expert opinions of Mr. Singer and Mr.
23
24
Dickson, that the Project may have a significant impact on the environment because the District lacks
the training and equipment needed to fight an industrial fire that may result from the Project. Because
25
the county relied on a negative declaration it is entitled to no deference for its conclusions of no
26
significant impacts. (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 930.) In light of the substantial evidence of
27
potentially significant impacts presented by Petitioners, an EIR must be prepared.
28
//
22
2) The 2007 Building Code.
The Districts conclusion that the Project will have a significant impact is also based on the
2
warehouse tents lack of compliance with the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Resistive standards of the
3
4
2007 California Building Code (CBC) (Wildland Standards). Chapter 7 of the Building Code
governs the materials and construction methods for exterior wildlife exposure for structures located in a
Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area. (AR10317.) The Wildland Standards require that any structure
built in the Timber Cove Fire Protection District after January 1, 2008 to be built with certified ignition
resistant materials. (CBC 701A.3.1.) To date, there are no membrane fabric structures that have been
certified as ignition resistant.
9
10
11
Compliance with the Wildland Standards is mandated unless exempted by local jurisdiction.
(AR10317.) When it adopted them, Sonoma County exempted compliance with the Wildland Standards
for accessory structures. (AR10317.) As demonstrated by the expert comments of Michael Singer,
regardless of whether the tents are deemed accessory under the zoning code, the tents do not meet the
12
specific definition of accessory in the building code, and therefore must comply with the Wildland
13
14
Standards. (AR1076.)
The Building Code provides that [b]uildings of an accessory character classified as Group U
15
occupancy and not exceeding 120 square feet in floor area, when located at least 30 feet from an
16
application building, and [b]uildings of an accessory character classified as Group U occupancy of
17
any size located at least 50 feet from any applicable building are exempt from complying with the
18
Wildland Standards. (CBC 701A.3.)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Section 312 of the California Building Code defines accessory buildings classified as Group U:
312.1 General. Buildings and structures of an accessory character and miscellaneous structures
not classified in any specific occupancy shall be constructed, equipped and maintained to
conform to the requirements of this code commensurate with the fire and life hazard incidental
to their occupancy. Group U shall include, but not be limited to the following: Agricultural
buildings; Aircraft hangars, accessory to a one- or two-family Residences (see Section 412.5);
Barns; Carports; Fences more than 6 feet (1829 mm) high; Grain silos, Accessory to a residential
occupancy; Greenhouses; Livestock shelters; Private garages; Retaining walls; Sheds; Stables;
Tanks; [and] Towers.
(CBC 312.1; AR1077[emphasis added].)
None of these building descriptions describe the warehouse tents, nor do they come under the
category of but not limited to because they are classified as a specific occupancy. (AR1077; AR45.)
The tents are classified in section 311.2 of the 2007 California Building Code as Group S-1 Moderate
Hazard Storage: Books and paper in rolls or packs. (CBC 311.2; AR45; AR1077.) The County agrees
23
with the District that the warehouse tents have an S-1 classification under the Building Code. (AR45.)
Since the warehouse tents are not accessory structures under the building code, they must comply with
the Wildland Standards. (AR1076-1078.)

3
4
The membrane fabric of the tents has a Flame Spread rating of ASTM E-84 which is the standard
for a tent structure. (AR1078.) By definition of both the CBC and the California Fire Code, a tent is a
temporary structure, in place for one year or less, and is not applicable to a permanent building.
(AR1078.) Since the Project would make the tents permanent, they must meet the higher standards of
ignition resistant material. (AR1074.) It is the Fire Districts expert opinion that since the Project
fails to meet the Wildland Standards, it will result in a significant public safety and fire hazard impact
that must be fully analyzed and mitigated in an EIR.
10
11
ii.
An EIR is required because the Project will conflict with the General
Plan and Zoning Code.
As demonstrated above, the Project will conflict with the Land Use Element of the General Plan,
12
as well as the Zoning Code. This is a significant impact that must be analyzed in an EIR. CEQA
13
Guidelines 15125(d) recognizes the vital function of general plan prescriptions in determining the
14
significance of a projects environmental impact. It mandates that [t]he EIR shall discuss any
15
inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans (14 CCR 15125(d); City
16
of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unif. School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 918; Friends of the Eel
17
18
River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 874 (EIR inadequate when Lead
Agency failed to identify relationship of project to relevant local plans).) The same requirement exists
for negative declarations. (CEQA Guidelines, App. G.) A significant impact on land use and planning
19
20
occurs if the project would [c]onflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
21
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
22
environmental effect. (CEQA Guidelines App. G, IX(b).) The purpose of this requirement is to
23
determine whether a project will have a significant impact on the environment in the context of a general
24
plans policies, objectives and standards. A projects impacts may be significant if they are greater than
25
those deemed acceptable in a general plan. (Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359,
26
1416; see also, Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 783-84.)
27
28
Conformity with a general plan, however, does not insulate a project from EIR review where it can be
fairly argued that the project will generate significant environmental effects. (Oro Fino Gold Mining
Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 882.)
24
3.
The County relies on an improper baseline.
The County skews the environmental impacts of the Project by improperly including the
2
temporary storage tents in the baseline rather than as part of the Project in the SMND. Every CEQA
3
document must start from a baseline assumption. The CEQA baseline is the set of environmental
conditions against which to compare a projects anticipated impacts. (CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th at
321.) In evaluating the environmental impact of the Project, the County violated CEQA by including
the temporary warehouse storage tents as part of the CEQA baseline, rather than analyzing the tents
environmental effects as part of the Project. (AR42.) The warehouse storage tents should have been
included as part of the Project rather than as part of the baseline for two reasons.
9
10
11
First, the tents should not be included in the baseline because they were not analyzed in the
previous CEQA documents. (AR2160.) When a project has already been analyzed under CEQA, as
was done here, the standards set forth in PRC 21166 and 14 CCR 15162 apply instead of CEQAs
rules relating to the existing physical conditions baseline. Under that standard, the proper CEQA
12
baseline is the level of operations that was analyzed and permitted in the last CEQA document.
13
14
(Fairview Neighbors, 70 Cal.App.4th at 243 (even though level of truck traffic exceeded levels analyzed
in a prior CEQA document, proper baseline was level of operations analyzed in prior CEQA
15
document).) By incorporating portions of a proposed project into the baseline, as the County did here,
16
the agency in effect grants a unilateral exemption from CEQA for that activity. (See, e.g., County of
17
Inyo, 71 Cal.App.3d at 195-97.) The County violated CEQA by relying on Ratna Lings illegal level of
18
operations as the baseline since Ratna Ling previously obtained a use permit that was subject to
19
environmental review under CEQA allowing a specified level of operation. It is that level of operation
20
21
that the County must compare the Project to. Since the 39,270 square feet of warehouse storage tents
have never undergone CEQA review, the County abused its discretion by including them in the baseline,
in essence providing the tents a CEQA exemption.
22
Second, the SMND should also not include the tents in the baseline because they were only
23
24
temporary. A temporary project does not form the baseline for a similar but permanent project.
(Apartment Assn of Greater LA, 90 Cal.App.4th at 1169; Chamberlin, 186 Cal.App.3d at 187.) Even
25
though the temporary tents existed at the time that CEQA review commenced, they did so illegally and
26
temporarily, as their temporary permits had expired. (See, AR38.) Thus, the temporary tents are just
27
that temporary. As the PRMD explained at the Board of Supervisors hearing, if the SMND is not
28
approved, the 40,000 sq. ft. of tents would have to be removed, and the books stored elsewhere.
25
(AR4269.) It is misleading to compare the fire danger from 40,000 sq. ft. of permanent book storage
tents to those of temporary tents, since the temporary tents will be removed if the Project is not
approved.
3
4
A similar situation arose in the case of Apartment Assn of Greater LA,90 Cal.App.4th 1162,
1169. In that case, the city contended that a permanent home inspection program would have no
impacts because the program was essentially the same as a temporary program that it was replacing, and
that therefore no CEQA review was required. The court disagreed, holding that the very fact that one
program was temporary and the other permanent made them different projects under CEQA. (Id.; see
also, Chamberlin, 186 Cal.App.3d at 187 (permanent traffic plan for a neighborhood in Palo Alto was a
separate CEQA project from a very similar interim traffic plan for the same area).) The Countys use of
10
an improper baseline violates CEQAs most basic requirement to analyze and mitigate the full scope of
11
the Projects impacts, and to fully inform the public of the environmental effects of that project. An EIR
is required to analyze the Projects impacts using the proper baseline methodology.
12
4.
13
14
Even under section 21166 the SMND is invalid because the Countys
conclusion that the Project will result in no significant public safety and fire
impacts is not supported by substantial evidence.
The County improperly concluded that the Project will not expose people or structures to a
15
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
16
17
to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. (AR135-136.) This conclusion is
not supported by substantial evidence. For example, the no impact conclusion is based on the finding
18
that [s]ince the previous MNDs were adopted, there are no changes in the project or changes in
19
circumstances under which the project is undertaken that would now expose people or structures to a
20
signicant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. (AR136.) This conclusion is not
21
supported by any evidence. In contrast, the Fire District submitted substantial evidence that the addition
22
of 5 presses, an increase from 800 to 1,600 amp electrical service, an increase from the 100,000 book
23
limit annually to an unlimited amount, and two new tent storage warehouses with 1 million cubic feet of
24
volume, constitute changes in the project that create significant new fire exposures. (AR12707.)
Additionally, the SMNDs no impact conclusion is based on a county-wide mutual aid agreement
25
among all Sonoma County Fire Districts. (AR136.) But the SMND does not analyze the response times
26
27
28
of the other districts, that would range from 30 to 40 minutes according to the District, and does not
analyze whether the equipment and training of any of the other districts is sufficient to fight an industrial
fire at Ratna Ling. (AR12707.)
26
In making its findings of no significant impact, the County also relies heavily on statements of
the Sonoma County Fire Marshall Roberta Macintyre. (AR44-45.) This reliance is misplaced, however,
because the Fire Marshall never concludes that the Project will have no significant impacts. Instead, she
3
4
testified that the analysis has not yet been done to determine if the Project will have significant impact.
(AR4332 [if Project is approved Fire Chiefs intent is that Timber Cove Fire and Sonoma County fire,
and the facility operators get together and basically get down and look at, okay, what are the real risks,
what are the hazards, and if those if we do, in fact, have real hazards and risks, how are we going to
mitigate those.].) The County abused its discretion by finding that the Project will have no significant
impacts, despite the substantial unrebutted evidence in the record to the contrary, and failed to proceed
in a manner required by law by certifying the SMND and approving the Project based thereon.
10
11
The final basis for the Countys conclusion that the Project will have no significant impacts is
based on its findings that warehouse tents comply with building and fire code standards. (AR44-45.)
But again, this conclusion is not based on substantial evidence. As discussed above, the tents are not
12
exempt from the Wildland Standards because they are not considered accessory under the Building
13
14
Code. Since the County agrees with the District that the text storage structures have an S1 or storage
occupancy classification under the California Building Code, (AR45), it abused its discretion in finding
15
that the tents were exempt from the Wildland Standards. Moreover, compliance with the rules of
16
another agency do not per se mean that the project will not have an environmental impact. (See, e.g.,
17
Kings Co v. Hanford (1990) 221 CA3d 692, 712-718 (agency erred by wrongly assuming that, simply
18
because the smokestack emissions would comply with applicable regulations from other agencies
19
regulating air quality, the overall project would not cause significant effects to air quality.); Citizens for
20
Non-Toxic Pest Control v. Dept. Food & Agr. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1575, 1587-88 (state agency may
21
not rely on registration status of pesticide to avoid CEQA review).) In this case, the Countys
determination that the tents comply with building codes does not support its finding of no impact
22
because the record contains unrebutted evidence of fire impacts despite compliance with such codes due
23
24
to the Fire Districts insufficient training and equipment.
26
Even under section 21166 the SMND is invalid because it is based on the
improper baseline, and therefore does not analyze the consistency of the
warehouse tents with the RRD land use designation and zoning
requirements.
27
The Countys analysis of the Projects potential conflict with an applicable land use plan or
25
28
5.
zoning ordinance, which is a significant impact under CEQA, is not supported by substantial evidence
27
because it omits a significant portion of the Project from its analysis. As discussed below in section
I.B.5, the County violated CEQA by including the 40,000 square feet of warehouse tents in the baseline,
rather than analyzing them as part of the Project. Only by omitting the tents from the analysis entirely
3
4
5
does the SMND conclude that the Projects conflicts with applicable land use policies are less than
significant. (AR141-142.)
There is no evidence in the record that supports the conclusion that the Project has no significant
land use planning impacts when considered in its entirety, including the 40,000 square feet of warehouse
tents. Since the SMND contains no analysis of the impacts of the entire Project, its conclusion that the
Projects land use impacts are less than significant are not supported by substantial evidence and must be
set aside.
10
6.
11
If the Project is considered a modification rather than a new project, then the
County improperly piecemealed the larger Ratna Ling Project.
If the Court analyses the Project under section 21166 as part of a larger project, then it is clear
12
that the County improperly piecemealed its analysis of the larger Ratna Ling Project, resulting in
13
inadequate analysis and disclosure of environmental impacts. CEQA prohibits a project proponent from
14
seeking approval of a large project in a piecemeal fashion in order to take advantage of environmental
15
exemptions or less robust CEQA requirements for smaller projects. (Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. So.
16
Valley Area Planning Commn (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1340.) Thus, CEQA mandates that
17
18
environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones
each with a minimal potential impact on the environment which cumulatively may have disastrous
consequences. (Bozung, 13 Cal.3d at 283-84; City of Santee, 214 Cal.App.3d at 1452; Citizens Assn for
19
20
Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 165.) This is true
even if one of the smaller parts might require only ministerial, rather than discretionary, approval. (Katzeff
21
v. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 601, 611-13.) In Bishop Area, for example,
22
a county issued two separate negative declarations for a single project, each analyzing different impacts
23
of the project. (172 Cal.App.3d at 165-166.) The court held that this approach illegally segmented the
24
environmental analysis, and required an EIR. (Id.; see also, Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at 308-309.)
25
26
27
28
If, as the County contends, this Project is not a new project and should instead be analyzed under
section 21166, then the piecemealing here is explicit. The County improperly segmented its
environmental review of the Ratna Ling Project by proceeding with a series of piecemealed MNDs and
more than 140 permit approvals made outside of the CEQA process for a single project. (AR6027-
28
6037) No CEQA document, including the SMND, analyzes the Ratna Ling Project and its
environmental impacts, as a whole.
The 2008 MND for a modification to the wellness center and for a 20 acre-foot reservoir was
3
4
first published in June 2008, and was adopted in August 2008. (AR5376.) By June of 2008, Ratna Ling
had already received permits for 40,000 square feet of temporary warehouse tents (AR5532-33);
expanded the press building to 21,000 square feet, added a new 2,010 conference center to the library
(AR5737), added a new 2,025 square foot meditation center (AR4947), and built a new detached barn
(AR 5771). In addition, Ratna Ling had applied for a use permit to build two large underground storage
caves and a new 800-seat Exhibition Hall. (AR4846.) None of these uses were part of the 2004 Use
Permit, yet none of them were discussed in the 2008 MND. (AR4676-4708 [2004 MND]; AR5376-
10
5404 [2008 MND].) This is because, as the 2008 MND explicitly states that expansion of the retreat
11
center uses, the conference center and related activities and cave buildings [for text storage] are the
subject of a separate application for a Use Permit and General Plan Amendment (PRMD file# PLP08-
12
0021) that is undergoing separate environmental review and that will require consideration and
13
14
approval by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. (AR5377.)

Now, the SMND states that since the previous MNDs were adopted, there are no changes in the
15
project or changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that would now expose
16
people to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. (AR136.) In other words, the
17
2008 MND said that the instant SMND would analyze the environmental impacts of the printing storage,
18
and then the SMND said that there was no impact because the printing storage is part of the baseline.
19
20
21
As a result, neither the SMND nor any previous CEQA document has analyzed the entire Ratna
Ling Project as a whole, including the additional 40,000 square feet of text storage tents. By
piecemealing the Ratna Ling Project, the County has hidden the environmental impacts of the
warehouse tents from the public and decision makers. The County must prepare an EIR that adequately
22
describes the project and analyzes it as a whole.

23
24
The courts have rejected precisely this type of piecemealing or failure to consider cumulative
impacts. In Arviv Enterprises, 101 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1341, a developer received a series of categorical
25
exemptions for a series of projects in the same area: 5 units, then 2 units, then 14 units (negative
26
declaration), and finally 5 units, calling them all separate projects. The court rejected this approach
27
and held that the developer had failed to consider the cumulative impacts of the project as a whole.
28
(Id. at 1346.) The court held that therefore the actions were part of the same project as a whole and
29

2014.12.12 Opening Brief Coastal Hills Rural Preservation vs. County of Sonoma, Case# SCV-255694

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2014.12.12 Opening Brief Coastal Hills Rural Preservation vs. County of Sonoma, Case# SCV-255694

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1

MICHAEL R. LOZEAU (Cal. Bar No. 142893)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COASTAL HILLS RURAL PRESERVATION, Case No.: SCV-255694

PETITIONERS OPENING BRIEF IN

COUNTY OF SONOMA, a political subdivision Hearing Date: March 27, 2015

Respondents and Defendants;

JACK PETRANKER, an individual, the Head

Real Party in Interest and Defendants.

PETITIONERS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 3

The 2004 Use Permit ......................................................................................................... 3

Piecemeal Expansion of Ratna Ling .................................................................................. 4

The Printing Facility is not Ancillary to the Retreat Center,

The Project ......................................................................................................................... 6

LEGAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 7

General Plan and Land Use................................................................................................ 7

California Environmental Quality Act ............................................................................... 8

Where a new project is proposed, the fair argument standard applies to

Project previously reviewed under CEQA .......................................................... 9

2. Project description, piecemealing, and baseline ........................................................ 10

LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................................................. 12

General Plan Consistency ................................................................................................ 12

California Environmental Quality Act ............................................................................. 13

3. Ratna Lings printing operations are not an accessory use. ................................... 17

The County failed to comply with CEQA ....................................................................... 20

2. An EIR is required because substantial evidence in the record supports a fair

1) Limited infrastructure in RRD zones ....................................................... 21

2) The 2007 Building Code .......................................................................... 21

3. The County relies on an improper baseline ............................................................... 25

Abbatti v. Imperial Irrig. Dist. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 650 ................................................................... 10

Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263 ................................................................................................. 10

Citizens Assn for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo

Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777................................... 24

Fairview Neighbors v. County of Ventura (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 238 ............................................. 16, 25

Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004................................................................. 9

Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359 ......................................................................... 24

Kings Co v. Hanford (1990) 221 CA3d 692 ............................................................................................ 27

Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531........................................... 7

Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322 ........................................................................ 9

Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors

Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176................................. 7

No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68 ......................................................................... 20

Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903 ........................................... 8, 9, 22

Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307 ........................................................ 2, 9, 10

Save Our Neighborhood v. Lishman (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1299 ........................................................ 10

Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116 .................................................................. 13

Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1974) 202 Cal.App.3d 296 .................................................... 8, 9, 28

Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 933 ....................................................................... 12

Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5(b) ........................................................................................................ 12

2007 California Building Code

CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14

Sonoma County General Plan 2020 ..................................................................................... 7, 8, 14, 15, 21

Use Permit (collectively, the Project).

of what is reasonable for an accessory use. (AR6742.)

related to book production and distribution. (AR36-37.)

hazardous emergencies associated with industrial operations.

hazard, and land use and planning impacts.

The 2004 Use Permit.

Piecemeal Expansion of Ratna Ling.

Dharma Presss industrial space in Berkeley.

of what is reasonable for an accessory use. (AR6742.)

In addition, Ratna Ling also made the following additional expansions:

in the press building at any one time.