An appellate court ruled Jan. 30 that the City of San Diego acted legally in 2010 when it repaired a ruptured storm drain whose outflow was eroding a steep slope and threatening to destabilize the hillside below homes in La Jolla. The City was sued for violating the California Environmental Quality Act by not conducting an after-the-fact review of the emergency project’s environment impacts. The Fourth District Court of Appeals upheld the City’s interpretation of review of the act for emergency repairs. The quality act exempts cities from conducting a full-blown environmental review in cases when immediate emergency action was required. Engineers had concluded the erosion posed an imminent threat to the homes and to public safety. The appellate court applied several exemptions to the City’s response, including the “common sense” exemption. City Attorney Jan Goldsmith said the decision reaffirms what everyone knows: Protecting people is the first priority in emergencies. “This is an important decision because the court recognizes that the City has some flexibility to deal with a threat to public safety,” Goldsmith said. The severity of the problem created by the failed storm drain was apparent in January 2010. The City issued a notice of exemption under the act for emergency storm drain repairs to the hillside below single-family homes on Camino Rialto in La Jolla. The City concluded that if the erosion continued unabated, it would present an imminent threat to public safety. It issued an emergency permit on Jan. 15 of 2010. No challenge to the notice of exemption or permit was filed, and the emergency storm drain repairs were completed in May of 2010. Pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code, the City filed an application for a regular coastal development permit formalizing the emergency repair and a site development permit to revegetate the impacted slope with native plants. The project was appealed to the Planning Commission and City Council, and ultimately a suit was filed in Superior Court, arguing the City violated the act by not conducting environmental review for the emergency storm drain repair. The lower court agreed with the plaintiff’s interpretation that further review of the act applied to the emergency storm drain repair and the City appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision , agreeing with the City that the proper baseline for the project under CEQA was after the emergency storm drain repairs were completed. The court further noted that the only additional work remaining was the revegetation of the hillside with native plants, which “indisputably would improve the site’s physical conditions.”