barnes & thornburg llp charles labella, bar no. 183448 · 2019-05-02 · charles labella, bar...

BARNES &

THORNBURG LLP

ATTO RN EY S AT LA W

LOS A NG EL ES

- 1 -

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1

2

3

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

Barnes & Thornburg LLP Charles LaBella, Bar No. 183448 [email protected] 655 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 321-5000 L. Rachel Lerman, Bar No. 193070 [email protected] 2029 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 284-3871

Attorneys for Petitioner PUBLIC WATCHDOGS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, NORTH DIVISION

PUBLIC WATCHDOGS,

Petitioner,

v.

CALIFORNIA STATE LAND COMMISSION; AND DOES 1-50,

Respondent.

Case No. ___________


[CCP §§ 1085, 1094.5; Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq. (California Environmental Quality Act)]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S. DEP’T OF DEFENSE; PATRICK SHANAHAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SEC’Y OF DEFENSE; U.S. DEP’T OF THE NAVY; RICHARD V. SPENCER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SEC’Y OF THE NAVY; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM’N; KRISTINE L. SVINICKI IN HER CAPACITY AS CHAIR OF THE NRC; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY; SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY; HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL, CITY OF ANAHEIM; CITY OF RIVERSIDE; AND DOES 51-100,

Real Parties in Interest.

BARNES &

THORNBURG LLP


LOS A NG EL ES

- 2 -


1

2

3

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

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Public Watchdogs brings this action to challenge the decision of respondent

State Land Commission (“SLC” or the “Commission”) to certify the final environmental impact

report (“Final EIR”) and approve the project at issue here (the “Project”), which entails the

decontamination and dismantlement of structures at the San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station

(“SONGS”), including spent nuclear fuel pools and fuel handling structures that contain about 2

million lbs. of spent nuclear fuel, a lethally dangerous substance.

The Project is part of the SONGS Decommissioning Plan, which includes a federally

approved Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (the “Approved ISFSI” or the “Spent Fuel

Storage Installation”) to house the fuel, and future anticipated activities, including transfer of the

spent nuclear fuel, substructure removal, and final site restoration. Although these activities are

inherently linked to one another and to the Project, they are being treated as independent events.

This piecemealing of the SONGS Decommissioning Plan enables the Commission to

justify its failure to analyze aspects of the Project that may have a profound and potentially lethal

effect on the environment and 8.5 million residents of San Diego and Orange County by

maintaining that these effects are unrelated to one of the other efforts comprising the SONGS

Decommissioning Plan. As a result, the Final EIR fails to address critical points related to the

Project, including the storage of spent nuclear fuel and design flaws in the canisters that transport

and house the spent fuel.

Furthermore, SLC refused to delay its vote on the Final EIR even though Petitioner and

others urged it to wait for the March 25 report of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”),

which was investigating safety concerns related to SONGS. The vote went forward on March 21,

2019, just four days before the NRC report was made public. In the report, the NRC cites and

penalizes Southern California Edison Company (“SoCal Edison”) for violations of federal law

concerning failures in the canister-loading process.

Until the NRC determines that the defects can be and have been corrected, spent nuclear

fuel cannot be moved from the spent fuel pools and fuel handling structures to the Spent Fuel

Storage Installation as anticipated by the Project.

BARNES &

THORNBURG LLP


LOS A NG EL ES

- 3 -


1

2

3

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

For these reasons and others discussed in the Petition, this Court should stay the Project

and require SLC to address these issues properly in a revised EIR or an EIR drafted with other

agencies involved in the SONGS Decommissioning Plan, either of which must comply with

CEQA.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has jurisdiction under Public Resources Code sections 21168 and 21168.5, and

Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 1094.5.

2. Venue is proper in the City and County of San Diego, North Division, because the Project

is located within the zip code filing area for this division.

3. This Petition is timely under Public Resources Code section 21167, because it is being

filed within 30 days of the date of filing of the Notice of Determination (filed March 21,

2019).

PARTIES

4. Petitioner Public Watchdogs is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation that serves as a public

safety advocate to ensure that government agencies and special interests comply with all

applicable laws, including public- safety and environmental-protection laws, especially in

the public utilities industry. Petitioner has at least one member who lives within the zone

of exposure to a catastrophic release of radioactive material from SONGS.

5. Respondent State Land Commission is the lead agency in this case.

6. Real Parties U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of the Navy, and the NRC are

agencies and instrumentalities of the federal government.

7. Real parties SoCal Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (“SD Gas & Elec.”) are

utilities doing business in the State of California.

8. On information and belief, Petitioner alleges that real party Riverside is a charter city

located in Riverside County, California duly organized under the laws of the State of

California and identified by the Commission in the Final EIR as a Participant.

9. On information and belief, Petitioner alleges that real party Anaheim is a city located in

Orange County, California duly organized under the laws of the State of California and

BARNES &

THORNBURG LLP


LOS A NG EL ES

- 4 -


1

2

3

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

identified by the Commission in the Final EIR as a Participant.

10. The true names and capacities of Real Parties identified as DOES 51 through 100 are

unknown to Petitioner, who will seek the Court's permission to amend this pleading in

order to allege the true names and capacities as soon as they are ascertained. Petitioner is

informed and believes and on that basis alleges that each of the fictitiously named Real

Parties 51 through 100 has some degree of liability to Petitioner or has some other

cognizable interest in this lawsuit or may be real parties in interest.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

11. The Commission’s approval of the Project is final and not subject to further administrative

appeals procedures. The Commission filed a Notice of Determination on March 22, 2019.

12. Petitioner, other agencies, interested groups, and individuals participated in the

administrative proceedings leading up to Respondent’s certification of the EIR and

approval of the Project, either by participating in hearings thereon or by submitting letters

commenting on Respondents’ Notice of Preparation and Final EIR, thereby complying

with Public Resources Code, section 21177, subdivision (b). Petitioner and others

attempted to persuade Respondent that the environmental review did not comply with the

requirements of CEQA, but were unsuccessful.

13. Respondent’s approval of the Ordinance and resolutions and certification of the EIR is not

subject to further administrative review by Respondent. Petitioner has availed itself of all

available administrative remedies for Respondent’s violation of CEQA.

14. In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21177, subdivision (a), all allegations

of non-compliance with CEQA alleged in this Petition were presented to Respondent

during the public comment period for the Project, or before the close of the public hearing

on the Project.

15. To the extent any grounds raised in this Petition were not raised during this period, it is

because there was no opportunity for members of the public to do so before Respondent’s

approval of the Project.

BARNES &

THORNBURG LLP


LOS A NG EL ES

- 5 -


1

2

3

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

16. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law within

the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1086, because Respondent’s approval of

the Project and associated EIR is not otherwise reviewable in a manner that provides an

adequate remedy. Accordingly, Petitioner seeks this Court’s review of Respondent’s

approval of the Project and certification of their EIR to rectify the violations of CEQA

alleged below.

17. Unless stayed, Respondent’s approval will allow the Project to proceed despite the

Commission’s lack of compliance with CEQA. This is contrary to the public interest.

Petitioner and its members and members of the public are likely to suffer irreparable harm

as a result of Respondent’s failure to take the required steps to protect the environment

and citizens of San Diego and Orange Counties.

SERVICE OF NOTICE

18. Petitioners have complied with Public Resources Code section 21167.5 by serving

Respondent SLC with notice of their intent to commence this action via e-mail and First

Class mail on April 19, 2019. A true and correct copy of this notice and proof of service is

attached as Exhibit A.

19. Petitioner will comply with Public Resources Code section 21167.6 by filing a notice of

its election to prepare the record of administrative proceedings relating to this action

concurrently with this Petition. A copy of the notice is attached as Exhibit B.

20. Petitioners will comply with Public Resources Code section 21167.7 by providing a copy

of this Petition to the Attorney General’s office.

PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOCTRINE

21. Petitioner brings this action as a private attorney general pursuant to Code of Civil

Procedure section 1021.5, and any other applicable legal theory, to enforce important

rights affecting the public interest. Issuance of the relief requested will confer a

significant benefit on a large class of persons by ensuring that Respondent SLC does not

carry out the Project in the absence of lawful environmental review and administrative

compliance.

BARNES &

THORNBURG LLP


LOS A NG EL ES

- 6 -


1

2

3

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Background of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (“SONGS”)

22. In 1963, Congress authorized the lease of approximately 90 acres on the military base

commonly known as Camp Pendleton to Real Parties SoCal Edison and SD Gas &

Electric so that they could construct, operate, maintain, and use the land for nuclear

electric generating station (i.e., SONGS).

23. So Cal Edison owns 78.2 % of the power plant and SD Gas & Electric owns 20%. The

remaining 1.8% is owned by the City of Riverside.

24. In 2013, the two utility companies notified the federal government that they had

permanently terminated power operations at SONGS, setting the stage for

decommissioning of the plant.

25. Decommissioning requires that the spent nuclear fuel associated with the plant be handled

and safely stored so that it does not contaminate the environment or endanger nearby

residents.

26. Spent nuclear fuel is extremely dangerous and lethal to humans; it has been described as a

“trash heap deadly for 250,000 years.” David Biello, Scientific American, January 28,

2009, available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-

or-renewable-energy-source.

27. The U.S. Government has already authorized burial of spent nuclear fuel in the Spent Fuel

Storage Installation. As commenters have observed, this installation is located in a

tsunami inundation zone on an earthquake fault line, fewer than 110 feet from the ocean.

28. The fuel will ultimately be transferred and stored in 73 canisters designed and

manufactured by real party Holtec International (“Holtec”). Although these canisters are

expected to hold the spent nuclear fuel indefinitely, they are warranted to last only 25

years, an infinitely small fraction of the time needed to sequester radioactive waste from

contact with people and the environment.

29. As revealed in NRC documents and noted at public hearings, the 29 canisters that have

been downloaded to date were gouged during the transfer process. Experts believe that

BARNES &

THORNBURG LLP


LOS A NG EL ES

- 7 -


1

2

3

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

the gouging may lead to deeper, through-the-wall cracks, which will make the future safe

movement of the canisters impossible. Experts also point out that damage to the canisters

will be exacerbated, inter alia, by the presence of salt air, fog, rain, and salt-water.

30. On August 3, 2018, a 49-ton canister was being lowered into a below-ground storage silo

when workers lost control of it. Fortunately, the canister caught on a quarter-inch wide

steel flange inside the underground silo, resulting in what the NRC terms a “near-miss”

event.

31. Although SoCal Edison was required to alert the NRC immediately and file a formal event

notification, it did not report the “near-miss” event until several days after it occurred and

delayed making the legally required report for 45 days.

32. In the first quarter of 2019, the NRC cited Holtec for violations of federal law, including

failure to establish adequate design control measures for the canisters.

B. The role of the Project within the overarching SONGS Decommissioning Plan

33. The Project that is the subject of this Petition is part of a larger action by So Cal Edison,

SD Gas & Electric, and the cities of Riverside and Anaheim. That action, which is known

as the SONGS Decommissioning Plan, addresses NRC and landowner requirements to

decommission SONGS.

34. The Project that is the subject of this Petition entails decontamination and dismantlement

of most of the on-shore above grade structures at SONGS, including the spent nuclear fuel

pools and fuel handling structures, which contain about sixty percent of the total 3.6

million pounds of spent nuclear fuel generated at SONGS.

35. The SONGS Decommissioning Plan also includes Operation and Maintenance of the

federally approved Spent Fuel Storage Installation (2015 through 2035) and Future

Anticipated Activities, including transfer of the spent nuclear fuel to off-site storage,

additional substructure removal, and final site restoration.

36. The EIR includes some information about the Fuel Storage Installation and Future

Anticipated Activities, but expressly states that it does not analyze them, in part because

SLC maintains they are outside of its jurisdiction.

BARNES &

THORNBURG LLP


LOS A NG EL ES

- 8 -


1

2

3

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

C. Certification of the Final EIR and Project approval

37. In July 12, 2016, SLC issued the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of a Draft EIR for the

proposed Project. Through the NOP, the Commission solicited written and verbal

comments on the EIR’s scope during a 30-day period. More than 45 organizations and

individuals provided comments.

38. On July 26-27, 2016, the Commission held scoping meetings in Oceanside and San

Clemente to inform members of the public and interested agencies about the Proposed

Project.

39. On June 27, 2018, the Commission issued notice of a 60-day public review period to

receive public comments (June 27-August 30, 2018).

40. On August 7-8, 2018, the Commission held noticed public meetings on the Draft EIR in

Oceanside and San Clemente, during which the public and interested agencies offered

comments. The Commission did not discuss the August 3 incident regarding the “near-

miss” incident with the canister.

41. In winter 2019, as noted above, the NRC identified violations by Holtec, including failure

to establish adequate design control measures for the canisters.

42. Meanwhile, the NRC continued to investigate the near-miss canister incident, on which it

was due to report March 25, 2019.

43. SLC set the voting date for certification for March 21, 2019. Petitioner and others asked

SLC to delay the vote until after the NRC issued its report, to no avail.

44. On March 20, 2019, fewer than 24 hours before the vote was taken to certify the Final

EIR, the lease was modified in several critical respects, with no opportunity for the public

to review or comment on the changes.

45. On March 21, 2019, the Commission certified the Final EIR, and approved the lease.

46. On March 22, 2019, the Commission filed a Notice of Determination.

47. On March 25, 2019, the NRC published the results of its investigation into the fallen

canister, citing SoCal Edison for safety violations. The NRC report can be found at:

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1907/ML19071A349.pdf.

BARNES &

THORNBURG LLP


LOS A NG EL ES

- 9 -


1

2

3

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

48. Until these safety violations are corrected to the satisfaction of the NRC, spent nuclear

fuel cannot be transferred from the SLC site to the Fuel Storage Installation.

LEGAL BACKGROUND

49. “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.” (Communities for a Better Environment v.

Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110.)

50. CEQA has two primary purposes. First, it is designed to inform decision makers and the

public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (Guidelines, §

15002(a)(1); Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564 [a

primary purpose of CEQA “is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the

environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made”].) The EIR

“protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” (Goleta Valley,

supra, at p. 564, citation and quotations omitted). An EIR is “an environmental ‘alarm

bell’” that “alert[s] the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes

before they have reached ecological points of no return.” (Cleveland Nat’l Forest Found.

v. San Diego Ass’n. of Gov’ts. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 503, citations omitted.)

51. Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when

“feasible” by requiring “environmentally superior” alternatives and all feasible mitigation

measures. (Guidelines, § 15002(a)(2) and (3); see also Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay

v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354; Goleta Valley, supra, 52

Cal.3d at pp. 564-565.) The EIR must therefore “identify ways that environmental

damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” (Guidelines, §15002(a)(2).)

52. If a project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve it

only if it finds that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the

environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the

environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.” (Pub. Resources Code,

§ 21081; Guidelines, §§15002, 15092(b)(2)(A) & (B).)

BARNES &

THORNBURG LLP


LOS A NG EL ES

- 10 -


1

2

3

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

STANDARD OF REVIEW

53. The question whether an agency has followed proper procedures is a legal question

reviewed de novo. (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 512 [as to

“these legal requirements, the agency has no discretion, and courts will invalidate an EIR

that fails to meet them.”].)

54. “[A] decision to use a particular methodology and reject another is amenable to substantial

evidence review …. But whether a description of an environmental impact is insufficient

because it lacks analysis or omits the magnitude of the impact is not[.] … A conclusory

discussion of an environmental impact that an EIR deems significant can be determined

by a court to be inadequate as an informational document without reference to substantial

evidence.” (Id. at p. 514, citations omitted.)

55. “[T]o the extent a mixed question requires a determination whether statutory criteria were

satisfied, de novo review is appropriate; but to the extent factual questions predominate, a

more deferential standard is warranted.” (Id. at p. 516, citing Connerly v. State Personnel

Bd. (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1169, 1175.)

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(VIOLATION OF CEQA; EIR DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CEQA)

A. The Final EIR suffers from the defects of piecemeal review, which is strictly

prohibited by CEQA.

56. All of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference into this cause of action.

57. CEQA requires the lead agency (in this case, SLC) to prepare an EIR for any proposed

project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Res. Code,

§ 21082.2, subd. (d).) An EIR is required to: (a) “provide public agencies and the public

in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to

have on the environment”; (b) “list ways in which the significant effects of such a project

might be minimized”; and (c) “indicate alternatives to such a project.” (Pub. Res. Code,

§ 21061.)

58. It is well-established that “[t]he requirements of CEQA cannot be avoided by piecemeal

BARNES &

THORNBURG LLP


LOS A NG EL ES

- 11 -


1

2

3

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

review which results from ‘chopping a large project into many little ones—each with a

minimal potential impact on the environment—which cumulatively may have disastrous

consequences.’” (Environmental Protection Info. Ctr. v. California Dept. of Forestry &

Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 503, citing Rio Vista Farm Bureau Ctr. v. County of

Solano (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 351, 370.) Yet, as agencies and members of the public

remarked, that piecemeal review is exactly what has occurred and continues to occur here.

59. Due to this improper “piecemealing” of the SONGS Decommissioning Plan, the Project is

mischaracterized as a “lease,” and accompanied by a Final EIR that fails to address the

fact that the lease includes buildings being used to store spent nuclear fuel. SLC

acknowledges that the Final EIR fails to address the environmental hazards of storing and

maintaining this radioactive waste, but asserts that these critical and integral aspects of the

Project are beyond its jurisdiction.

60. The Final EIR also fails to address how the buildings will be demolished before the spent

nuclear fuel can be transported to the Spent Fuel Installation.

61. The EIR must be revised to address the issues involved in storing spent nuclear fuel and

the dangers of exposure to radioactive materials and alternatives such as relocation of the

spent nuclear fuel.

B. SLC’s responses to comments are inadequate.


63. A lead agency must evaluate and respond to timely comments on the draft EIR that raise

significant environmental issues. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d); Guidelines,

§ 15088.) Responses must describe the disposition of the issues raised in the comments.

(Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d)(2)(B); Guidelines, § 15088.) If the agency

rejects a recommendation or objection concerning a significant environmental issue, the

response must explain the reasons why. (Guidelines, § 15088, subd. (c).) The lead

agency’s responses must articulate “good faith, reasoned analysis in responses,” and not

mere “[c]onclusory statements unsupported by factual information.” (Ibid.; see

Environmental Protection Info. Center, Inc. v. Johnson (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 604, 628.)

BARNES &

THORNBURG LLP


LOS A NG EL ES

- 12 -


1

2

3

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

64. SLC’s responses to the public’s comments about the piecemeal approach taken by the

agencies and resulting deficiencies in the Final EIR are insufficient. They fail to provide

adequate information concerning the storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel to

provide a reader with an adequate understanding of the environmental effects that may

result from the Project. (See, e.g., San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County

of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 725; City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified

School Dist. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 395.)

C. Recirculation is necessary to address significant new information added to the

EIR after public notice and before certification.


66. An EIR must be recirculated whenever significant new information is added to the EIR

after public notice but before certification. New information is significant when the EIR

is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon

a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or

avoid such an effect that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.

67. An EIR must be recirculated, inter alia, when: (a) a new significant environmental impact

would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure (Pub. Resources Code,

§ 15088.5, subd. (a)(1)); (b) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental

impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted to reduce the impact to a level

of insignificance (Pub. Resources Code, § 15088.5, subd. (a)(2)); or (c) fundamental and

basic deficiencies in the EIR precluded meaningful public review and comment (Pub.

Resources Code, § 15088.5, subd. (a)(4)).

68. The results of the NRC investigation into the “near-miss” canister incident are not

properly accounted for in the Final EIR. SLC should be required to address this safety

violation and the steps taken to correct it once it has been resolved.

69. Furthermore, the lease itself was modified only 17 hours before the vote on March 20,

2019 to include significant new information regarding the monitoring of hazard levels

resulting from the release of radioactive material.

BARNES &

THORNBURG LLP


LOS A NG EL ES

- 13 -


1

2

3

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

70. Had Petitioner known of these modifications, it would have commented on the inadequacy

of the proposed monitoring system and So Cal Edison’s failure to notify San Diego

County in addition to Orange County of radiation-monitoring results

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(VIOLATION OF CEQA & BAGLEY-KEENE; INADEQUATE NOTICE)


72. The purpose of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act is stated in Government Code

section 11120:

It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the

conduct of the people's business and the proceedings of public agencies be

conducted openly so that the public may remain informed. [¶] In enacting

this article the Legislature finds and declares that it is the intent of the law

that actions of state agencies be taken openly and that their deliberation be

conducted openly. [¶] The people of this state do not yield their

sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating

authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good

for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people

insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the

instruments they have created.

73. The Bagley-Keene Act provides remedies by authorizing legal actions to prevent

threatened violations of the act or declare its applicability to past or threatened future

actions of a body (Govt. Code, § 11130, subd. (a)), and to declare null and void an action

taken in violation of the Bagley-Keene Act (Govt. Code, § 11130.3).

74. SLC violated the Bagley-Keene Act by failing to provide notice of the changes to the

original text of the proposed Lease that were made less than 24 hours before the vote on

the EIR. (See Govt. Code, § section 11346.8, subdivision (c).) SLC also violated CEQA

by failing to give the public notice of the changes and an opportunity to respond to them.

BARNES &

THORNBURG LLP


LOS A NG EL ES

- 14 -


1

2

3

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

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(VIOLATION OF THE BROWN ACT)


76. Government Code section 54960.1, subdivision (a) of the Brown Act provides that an

interested person may sue the legislative body of a local agency by mandamus or

injunction to determine whether an action taken by that body violated certain provisions of

the Act, and as a consequence is null and void.

77. “‘To state a cause of action, a complaint based on [§] 54960.1 must allege: (1) that a

legislative body of a local agency violated one or more enumerated Brown Act statutes;

(2) that there was “action taken” by the local legislative body in connection with the

violation; and (3) that before commencing the action, plaintiff made a timely demand of

the legislative body to cure or correct the action alleged to have been taken in violation of

the enumerated statutes, and the legislative body did not cure or correct the challenged

action.’” (Bell v. Vista Unified School Dist. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 672, 684.)

78. The Commission violated the Brown Act by denying the request of Petitioner and others

to await the results of the investigation of an accident involving a Holtec canister by the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which was due to report its investigation on March 25,

2019.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for relief as follows:

79. For alternative and peremptory writs of mandate, commanding Respondent to:

(A) vacate and set aside approval of the Project;

(B) vacate and set aside certification of the Final EIR for the Project;

(C) prepare and certify a legally adequate EIR for the Project;

(D) suspend any and all activity pursuant to Respondent’s approval of the Project that

could result in an adverse change or alteration to the physical environment until

Respondent has complied with all requirements of CEQA and all other applicable

statutes and local laws, policies, ordinances, and regulations are directed by this

BARNES &

THORNBURG LLP


LOS A NG EL ES

- 15 -


1

2

3

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

Court pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21168.9.

80. For a stay, temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction

prohibiting any actions by Respondents pursuant to Respondents’ approval of the Project

and certification of the EIR for the Project until Respondents have fully complied with all

requirements of CEQA and all other applicable state and local laws policies, ordinances,

and regulations;

81. For costs of suit;

82. For attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; and

83. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: April 22, 2019

Barnes & Thornburg LLP By:

Charles LaBella L. Rachel Lerman Attorneys for Petitioner Public Watchdog

BARNES &

THORNBURG LLP ATTO RN EY S AT LA W

LOS A NG EL ES


1

2

3

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

VERIFICATION

I, Charles Langley, am an officer of Public Watchdogs, the Petitioner in this action. I have

read the foregoing Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and know its contents. The statements of

fact contained in the Petition are true and correct of my own knowledge, or based on my

information and belief.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 22

April, at San Diego, California.

By:

Charles Langley

EXHIBIT A

BARNES &


LOS A NG EL ES

NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT

1

2

3

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

BARNES & THORNBURG LLP Charles G. La Bella (SBN 183448) [email protected] 655 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 321-5000 L. Rachel Lerman (SBN 193080) [email protected] 2029 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 284-3880

Attorneys for Petitioner PUBLIC WATCHDOG



PUBLIC WATCHDOG,

Petitioner,

v.

CALIFORNIA STATE LAND COMMISSION,

Respondents.

Case No. ___________



SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY; SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY; HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL; CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; PATRICK SHANAHAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ACTING SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; RICHARD V. SPENCER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE NAVY; DOES 1-100,


BARNES &


LOS A NG EL ES

1


1

2

3

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

TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS

COMMISSION, AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, under Public Resources Code section 21167.5, that Petitioner

PUBLIC WATCHDOGS intends to file a petition for writ of mandate under the provisions of the

California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) against the CALIFORNIA STATE LAND

COMMISSION (“Respondent) challenging Respondent’s certification of an Environmental

Impact Report (“EIR”) for the storage of spent nuclear fuel rods at the San Onofre Nuclear

Generating Station. The exact nature of the allegations and relief sought is described in a Petition

for Writ of Mandate that Petitioner plans to file on April 22, 2019.

Dated: April 19, 2019

BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

By: Charles G. La Bella L. Rachel Lerman Attorneys for Petitioner Public Watchdog

EXHIBIT B

BARNES &


LOS A NG EL ES

NOTICE OF ELECTION

1

2

3

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

Barnes & Thornburg LLP Charles LaBella, Bar No. 183448 [email protected] 655 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 321-5000 L. Rachel Lerman, Bar No. 193070 [email protected] 2029 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 284-3871

Attorneys for Petitioner PUBLIC WATCHDOGS



PUBLIC WATCHDOGS,

Petitioner,

v.

CALIFORNIA STATE LAND COMMISSION; AND DOES 1-50,

Respondent.

Case No. ___________

NOTICE OF ELECTION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S. DEP’T OF DEFENSE; PATRICK SHANAHAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SEC’Y OF DEFENSE; U.S. DEP’T OF THE NAVY; RICHARD V. SPENCER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SEC’Y OF THE NAVY; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM’N; KRISTINE L. SVINICKI IN HER CAPACITY AS CHAIR OF THE NRC; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY; SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY; HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL, CITY OF ANAHEIM; CITY OF RIVERSIDE; AND DOES 51-100,


BARNES &


LOS A NG EL ES

1

NOTICE OF ELECTION

1

2

3

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

Petitioner elects to prepare the administrative record of proceedings.

By:

BARNES & THORNBURG LLP Dated: April 22, 2019

Charles G. La Bella L. Rachel LermanAttorneys for Petitioner Public Watchdog

barnes & thornburg llp charles labella, bar no. 183448 · 2019-05-02 · charles labella, bar...

Documents