BOF Suit
Home ] Up ] Settlement ] [ BOF Suit ] Preliminary Injunction ] PI Brief ] TRO brief ] Initial lawsuit filing ]

 

PAUL V. CARROLL/121369
Attorney At Law
5 Manor Place
Menlo Park, California 94025
(650) 322-5652

Attorney for Petitioners

CAMPAIGN TO RESTORE JACKSON STATE REDWOOD FOREST and
DHARMA CLOUD FOUNDATION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MENDOCINO

CAMPAIGN TO RESTORE JACKSON STATE REDWOOD FOREST and

DHARMA CLOUD CHARITABLE FOUNDATION TRUST,

Petitioners,

v.

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF FORESTRY, and Does I through X inclusive;

Respondents.

___________________________________/

No.:

UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE
PETITION FOR WRIT
OF MANDATE (CCP § 1085)

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1. Petitioner Campaign to Restore Jackson State Redwood Forest is an association of persons, most of whom reside in Mendocino County, that is dedicated to restoring publicly owned Jackson Demonstration State Forest (JDSF) in order to protect salmon and other wildlife, and for recreational, scientific, and educational public use.

2. Dharma Cloud Charitable Foundation Trust is a nonprofit corporation. It conducts charitable activities for the coastal communities of Mendocino County, including long-range planning for JDSF, preservation of and public access to coastal lands, development of a community plan for the community of Caspar, and support of Buddhist religious activities.

3. The personal, aesthetic, and environmental interests of Petitioners and the persons associated with them will be severely injured, if Respondent California Board of Forestry’s (Board) June 12, 2001, change in policy relating to state forests is allowed to be implemented in the absence of environmental review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Petitioners are within the class of persons beneficially interested in and aggrieved by the Board’s policy change.

4. Respondent Board is an agency of the State of California.

5. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of DOES I through X are unknown to Petitioner, who therefore sues said Respondents by such fictitious names. Petitioner will seek leave to amend this petition when they have been ascertained.

6. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 1085; California Public Resources Code, sections 21167 and 21168.5.

7. Petitioners have performed all conditions precedent to the filing of this Petition.

8. At all times mentioned herein, the Board has been able to deny the approval of the modification to Board policy. Despite such ability, the Board has failed and continues to fail to perform its duty to deny the approval of the modification.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. As of July 12, 2001, Board policy relating to state forests provided in part: "Management plans shall be prepared and maintained current for the Jackson…State Forests. All operations on the forests shall conform to the management plans."

10. On May 18, 2001, this Court issued a preliminary injunction in Campaign to Restore Jackson State Redwood Forest v. CDF (Super. Ct. Mendocino County, No. 0083611) (Campaign to Restore I), prohibiting CDF from going forward with two timber harvest plans in JDSF, because CDF was not managing JDSF in accordance with a current management plan.

11. In response to the preliminary injunction, the Board amended its policy relating to state forests, in part by deleting the requirement that management plans be maintained current. As a result of this policy change, CDF and the Board took the position that the preliminary injunction and underlying lawsuit were moot, and that logging in JDSF could go forward.

12. During its approval of the policy change, the Board was advised by counsel that its action was not subject to CEQA. Accordingly, the Board did not conduct any environmental review of the policy change and the effects that it would have on the environment.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

13. The allegations of paragraph 1 through 12 are incorporated as fully set forth herein.

14. Under CEQA, approval of a discretionary project requires environmental review. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.) CEQA broadly defines projects as "activities undertaken by a public agency." (Pub. Res. Code, § 21065; see § 21080.) A project is defined as the "whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment....." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15378(a).)

15. The Board’s June 12, 2001, policy change was a discretionary activity of a public agency that will unquestionably have an ultimate impact on the environment. Indeed, the Board and CDF made the change so that logging in JDSF could go forward. The Board’s action was therefore subject to CEQA.

16. Contrary to the advice it received from counsel, the Board’s action was not exempt from CEQA. The Board’s action was not the type of ministerial, administrative policy-making that has either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect impact on the environment. (City of Livermore v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 531.)

17. The Board therefore violated CEQA when it approved the July 12, 2001, policy change, because it failed to analyze the environmental impacts of its action.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for judgment as follows:

1. For Writ of Mandate ordering the Board to void its June 12, 2001, approval of the modification to Board policy relating to state forests, and to conduct environmental review in accordance with CEQA.

2. For an injunction barring the Board from implementing the June 12, 2001, policy change, until that change has been analyzed in accordance with CEQA.

3. For reasonable attorney’s fees under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5.

4. For costs of suit.

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

Dated: January 2, 2002

 

  PAUL V. CARROLL

Attorney for Petitioner

 

VERIFICATION

I, Paul Carroll, declare as follows: I am an attorney admitted to practice before the courts of the State of California and have my office in Menlo Park, County of San Mateo, California. I am the attorney for Dharma Cloud Charitable Foundation Trust, and Campaign to Restore Jackson State Redwood Forest herein and am authorized to file this Petition. Petitioners are unable to make the verification because they are absent from San Mateo County. For that reason I make this Verification on Petitioners’ behalf. I have read the foregoing petition and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated on information and belief, which I am informed and believe are true, and on that basis allege them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed on January 2, 2002, Menlo Park, California.

Paul Carroll