Source: https://www.thomaslaw.com/blog/category/tieringstreamlining/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:03:30+00:00

Document:
In The Inland Oversight Committee v. City of San Bernardino (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 771, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgement entered by the trial court sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, holding that a mandate action brought by The Inland Oversight Committee (IOC), CREED-21, and the Highland Hills Homeowners Association (HOA) alleging CEQA and Water Code violations was barred by res judicata based on the final judgment in the HOA’s prior related CEQA action and failure to state a claim.
The Court’s opinion involved challenges to modifications to the Highland Hills Project (Project), a 541-acre mixed use development in the City of San Bernardino (City). The specific plan and associated EIR were originally approved in 1982. Subsequent amendments to the Project and challenges to those amendments resulted in an agreement. As relevant here, the agreement’s second addendum (Second Addendum) permitted “minor modifications” to the Project, defined as those resulting in development with the same or less intense environmental impacts from a CEQA standpoint, could be approved as “ministerial acts” by the City’s development director without further planning commission involvement.
In 2014, Real Party in Interest First American Title Insurance Company (First American), the developer’s successor in interest, applied for modified construction plans that (1) further reduced the total number of units; (2) eliminated commercial uses, including a convenience store and golf course; (3) increased park acreage and protected an important ridge line by eliminating higher-elevation development; and (4) substantially reduced the Project’s footprint and impact on jurisdictional streams and wetlands. The City’s development director adopted and made findings from an independent environmental consultant’s report that these were “minor modifications” in line with the Second Addendum. The City rejected appeals by the HOA and approved the modifications. The City filed a motion in the trial court requesting confirmation the proposed changes complied with the terms of the Second Addendum. The trial court granted the motion. The HOA timely appealed.
The IOC, joined by CREED-21 and the HOA, filed suit in 2015 challenging the approval of the minor modifications by the City for being illegal under CEQA and the Water Code. The trial court sustained the City and First American’s demurrer without leave to amend on the grounds that the issues were moot by the principle of res judicata. The IOC, CREED-21, and the HOA collectively appealed.
Addressing the doctrine of res judicata, the Appellate Court found that a valid final judgement on the merits bars subsequent action by the parties “or their privities on the same cause of action.” Identical causes of action are those that involve the same “primary right.” For CEQA cases, res judicata is limited; “if two actions involve the same general subject matter but involve two distinct episodes of purported noncompliance, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply.” Applying these principles, the Court held that the IOC, CREED-21, and the HOA’s CEQA claim was the same one asserted in the related action brought only by the HOA and resolved in 2017. Specifically, the claims in both are that the City violated CEQA by failing to conduct further environmental review by treating First American’s proposal as “minor modifications” under the Second Addendum. The HOA litigated the claim and lost, receiving a final judgement on arguments that were specifically alleged in the action brought by the three groups together.
The Court then turned to principles of collateral estoppel. Privity is found where “a relationship between the party to be estopped and the unsuccessful party in the prior litigation is “sufficiently close” so as to justify application of collateral estoppel. Thus, the Court likewise barred the same CEQA claim as asserted by the IOC, CREED-21, and the HOA together because the entities are in privity with the HOA. Such a relationship renders the losing litigant a “virtual representative” of the new plaintiffs where it has the “same interest” as them and a “strong motive” to assert it. The IOC, CREED-21, and the HOA shared the same interest in “promoting responsible land use and planning” and sought to invalidate the minor modifications. Since there was no evidence the HOA failed to zealously litigate the related matter, the IOC, CREED-21, and the HOA’s collective interests were adequately represented in the previous case.
The Court also dismissed appellants Water Code claim that asserted a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was required for the Project modifications. While a WSA is required for certain discretionary development approvals, the Project modifications, as held above, were ministerial.
The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgement; the demurrer was sustained.
The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel prevent citizens’ groups from collectively filing a lawsuit with the same issues that one of the groups had previously received a final judgment on.
In an unpublished opinion, City of Milpitas v. City of San Jose, 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8610, the Sixth Appellate District upheld the City of San Jose’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill and Recyclery. The programmatic EIR assessed the impacts of: (1) increasing the maximum elevation of the landfill to increase the landfill’s capacity; and (2) rezoning the landfill area and Recyclery to conform to existing and proposed landfill activities.
The Court first determined that the document qualified as a programmatic EIR because it involved a comprehensive rezoning and because specific details about construction and operation were not available for a number of uses proposed as part of the project, requiring further environmental review.
The Court next addressed whether the impact analysis was adequate. With regard to the light impact analysis, the Court found that, as a program-level document, the City of San Jose’s analysis was proper. The final EIR expressly called for further environmental review for many uses that would be allowed by the rezoning, including expansion of landfill yard activities and construction of new structures. The structures would presumably comply with the City of San Jose’s lighting policy and design guidelines and any potentially significant project-specific impacts would be identified and mitigated as part of later environmental review.
The Court then turned to the EIR’s noise analysis. The City of Milpitas alleged that the final EIR would allow the relocation of certain landfill activities within an identified California clapper rail buffer and the relocation of such landfill activities was not properly analyzed in the EIR. The Court deferred to the City of San Jose’s interpretation of the buffer and found that the project would have no significant operational noise or vibration impacts. To the extent that the City of Milpitas also challenged the use of existing noise conditions in determining whether new uses would be substantially louder, the Court found that the existing noise levels were appropriately part of the environmental baseline.
On the odor analysis, the Court rejected the City of Milpitas’ argument that the final EIR failed to follow the air district’s significance thresholds for odor. The Court held that because the final EIR effectively treated odor impacts as potentially significant and identified mitigation measures to counteract those impacts, any deficiency in compliance with the air district’s guidelines threshold of significance was harmless. The City of Milpitas’ allegation that the EIR failed to analyze the odor impacts of increased landfill gas emissions was also rejected by the Court; the expert conclusion in the record was not contradicted by other expert evidence. The Court also rejected arguments raised by the City of Milpitas regarding volatile organic compounds and sulfur oxides because they were forfeited for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Even assuming the City of Milpitas had not forfeit those arguments, the Court held that it had not provided any expert evidence to support its assertions on appeal.
Finally, the Court rejected the City of Milpitas’ assertion that the EIR’s project objectives were drawn so narrowly that they precluded effective analysis of alternatives to the project. The Court recognized that CEQA does not forbid site-specific project objectives and found that the site specific nature of the EIR’s project objectives did not preclude effective alternatives analysis. The Court also held that the City Council’s conclusion that none of the alternatives was feasible was supported by substantial evidence.
In an opinion issued April 9, 2015, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley denied a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the environmental impact report (EIR) for the McKinley Village infill development project in East Sacramento. The court also rejected petitioner’s argument that McKinley Village conflicted with the City of Sacramento’s General Plan. Thomas Law Group successfully represented the developer in defending against the suit.
The McKinley Village project broke ground in summer 2014 on 336 residential units and associated infrastructure. The vacant 49-acre lot is bounded by a freeway to the north and railroad tracks to the south along with a former landfill site beyond the freeway to the north. Following a recommendation by the City’s Planning and Design Commission, the City Council certified the EIR and approved the McKinley Village project. Petitioner “East Sacramento Partnerships for a Livable City” subsequently filed a petition seeking to set aside the City’s approval of the project.
Petitioner first claimed the EIR did not adequately analyze how the project’s proximity to a freeway, railroad tracks, and former landfill site may adversely affect the health and safety of future McKinley Village residents. However, the court held the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) only requires a lead agency to analyze the impacts a project will have on the existing environment––as opposed to the affects the environment will have on a project. Therefore, the City could not have violated CEQA by failing to “adequately” analyze the impacts of the existing environmental conditions on the project because CEQA did not require any analysis of those impacts at all.
Next, petitioner contended the City violated CEQA by not recirculating the EIR after making “significant and fundamental” changes to the project. The purported changes compelling recirculation included a third vehicular access at Alhambra Boulevard, a proposal to remove Sutter’s Landing Parkway from the City’s General Plan, a half-street closure at the intersection of 28th and C streets, as well as approvals for a development agreement, a rezoning request to allow multi-family residential uses, and a variance for driveway widths.
The court held neither the proposal to consider another vehicular underpass at Alhambra Boulevard access nor the proposal to remove Sutter’s Landing Parkway from the City’s General Plan were part of the project approved by the City. As the City would have to complete additional environmental review if either proposal moved forward, the City did not have to recirculate the EIR due to these proposals.
With respect to the development agreement and driveway variance, the court agreed with petitioner that they should have been included in the draft EIR as approvals needed to implement the project. However, the City’s failure to include them did not preclude public participation and therefore was not a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Additionally, while the City decided to rezone to allow multi-family dwelling units after circulating the draft EIR, the court held petitioner failed to satisfy its burden of showing this constituted significant new information and the City did not abuse its discretion by not recirculating the EIR.
Similarly, the court held the half-street closure at 28th and C streets did not constitute significant new information. The court agreed with the City that the closure diverted traffic to another street with greater capacity and did not substantially increase the severity of traffic impacts in the EIR.
Petitioner also contended the EIR violated CEQA because it failed to properly identify, analyze and mitigate traffic impacts. However, the court held substantial evidence supported the City’s traffic impact conclusions. Further, the City did not abuse its discretion by using a flexible Level of Service (LOS) metric from the General Plan as the significance threshold to measure the traffic impacts on intersections. Although using the flexible LOS standard allowed otherwise significant levels of traffic congestion to exist without constituting a significant impact, it avoided more detrimental mitigation measures to reduce traffic impacts such as widening lanes and building new roads.
Finally, the court rejected petitioner’s argument that the McKinley Village project was inconsistent with the City’s General Plan. Petitioner listed eighteen General Plan policies that allegedly conflicted with the project; however, the court explained that many of the policies were amorphous and subjective such as “supporting transit service” and “promoting complete neighborhoods.” Accordingly, petitioner’s perceived inconsistencies with these imprecise policies was insufficient to render the project inconsistent with the General Plan as a whole. Where the policies were more discrete in nature such as investigating the site for hazardous materials, the court held adequate evidence supported a finding of consistency.
Only one General Plan policy gave the court pause––a requirement that new neighborhoods include transit stops within a half mile of all dwellings. The court ultimately concluded that given other portions of the General Plan discouraging users from focusing on individual General Plan elements, the City reasonably could have concluded the policy was an advisory policy and strict compliance was not mandatory. Therefore, the court held the City did not abuse its discretion in finding McKinley Village was consistent with the General Plan.
Following the court’s decision, an attorney for the petitioner told the Sacramento Business Journal the petitioner is considering its options including whether to file an appeal.
On November 24, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District granted a request to publish the recent case Sierra Club v. County of San Diego, 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 1077. In the decision, the appellate court affirmed the trial court and granted a writ of mandate requiring a supplemental environmental impact report (EIR) for San Diego County’s Climate Action Plan (CAP).
The publication of the opinion comes on the heels another key California environmental law case in Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments, 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 1070. In both cases, the Fourth Appellate District examined the application of Governor Schwarzenegger’s 2005 Executive Order No. S-3-05 and the Legislature’s subsequent climate change mandates in AB 32 and SB 375. The executive order required statewide reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 by 2050.
In the newly-published Sierra Club opinion, the court emphasized the specific evidentiary support required by lead agencies in complying with the mandates of the 2005 executive order and subsequent legislation. The executive order “requires consistent emissions reductions each year from 2010 through 2020 and then a greater quantity of emissions reductions each year from 2020 through 2050.” Lead agencies such as the County cannot rely on compliance with other state and federal statutes and planned but unfunded programs to meet the greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements. A “good faith, reasoned analysis” under CEQA requires more than citations to entire appendices in the County’s CAP; it requires specific evidence that people will participate in the various programs to the extent necessary to achieve the emissions reductions.
A complete summary of the case is available here: http://www.thomaslaw.com/blog/appellate-court-requires-supplemental-eir-san-diego-countys-climate-action-plan/.
In a split decision in Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments, 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 1070, a majority of the three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District affirmed a writ of mandate challenging the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG) environmental review of its 2050 Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategy (transportation plan).
The court’s decision turned on the significance of the 2005 executive order by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger requiring statewide reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 by 2050. The legislature passed SB 375 in 2008, which directed California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop regional GHG targets for automobiles and light trucks for 2020 and 2035. SB 375 also required each of California’s eighteen metropolitan planning agencies such as SANDAG to develop a sustainable communities strategy that provides a coordinated, long-term land use and transportation plan to meet the state’s emissions goals.
The programmatic environmental impact report (EIR) for SANDAG’s transportation plan analyzed the GHG impacts against three significance thresholds and considered the plan’s potential GHG impacts in 2020, 2035, and 2050. However, the court held SANDAG was required to analyze the transportation plan’s consistency with the 2005 executive order. The EIR did not reflect SANDAG’s reasonable good faith effort at full disclosure because it ignored the executive order’s role in shaping state climate policy.
The court rejected SANDAG’s argument that it was not required to analyze the executive order because there was no statute or regulation translating the order into scientifically-based emissions targets. Although SANDAG may not have known the specific targets and SANDAG had broad discretion to set select the criteria for determining the significance of the environmental impact, SANDAG knew the transportation plan would lead to an overall increase in GHG emission levels after 2020. Accordingly, SANDAG abused its discretion in not considering consistency with the governor’s executive order.
As to the adequacy of mitigation measures for GHG impacts, the court held that the EIR did not adequately mitigate the significant environmental impacts of the transportation plan. The court found that three feasible mitigation measures included in the EIR did not take concrete steps to reduce emissions and were already incorporated into the plan, which nullified any possible mitigating effect.
The court next considered the respondent’s cross appeals that the trial court declined to consider. The court held the EIR did not adequately consider a reasonable range of project alternatives. While the EIR included seven project alternatives, the alternatives all focused on congestion relief, which only provided a short-term reduction in GHG emissions. Instead, the court stated SANDAG should have considered alternatives for reducing total vehicle miles traveled.
The court also held the air quality analysis in the EIR was inadequate. Although SANDAG argued the air quality analysis was sufficient for a program level EIR, the court reasoned SANDAG could not provide any evidence demonstrating that further analysis of air quality impacts at this stage was infeasible.
Lastly, the court held the EIR did not adequately analyze the impact of the transportation plan on agriculture lands because the methodology in the EIR left too many gaps in the data and produced an unreliable estimate of the amount of existing farmland.
Although the majority did not expressly hold that the GHG emissions targets in the governor’s 2005 executive order established thresholds of significance, the majority clearly stated the executive order formed the state’s “climate change policy.” Accordingly, lead agencies must be mindful to consider the 2005 executive order and its targets in both program- and project- level environmental impact reports.
In Saltonstall v. City of Sacramento, 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 1053, the California Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the constitutionality of a legislative amendment to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that shortened the deadlines for review of a sports arena project in downtown Sacramento. The court also affirmed the trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction seeking to stop construction of the Sacramento arena project.
The NBA required completion of a new arena by 2017 in order to keep the Kings basketball team in Sacramento. To meet the deadline, the legislature enacted Public Resources Code Section 21168.6.6, which modified CEQA review deadlines exclusively for the Sacramento arena project, but did not otherwise substantively modify CEQA.
Individuals opposed to the arena project sued, contending Section 21168.6.6 represented an unconstitutional intrusion of the legislative branch on the courts. Plaintiffs also requested a preliminary injunction, which was denied by the trial court.
Although arguably moot pending resolution of the merits by the trial court, the court of appeal evaluated and upheld the constitutionality of Section 21168.6.6.
Section 21168.6.6 established specific factors for a court to consider in determining whether to enjoin construction or operation of the downtown arena. Under Section 21168.6.6, a court could not issue an injunction unless it found that construction or operation of the downtown arena presents an imminent threat to public health and safety, or would permanently and adversely impact unforeseen important historical, archaeological, or ecological resources. Thus, Section 21168.6.6 changed the general injunction standard for purposes of the Sacramento arena. However, the court held it was within the legislature’s authority and not a violation of separation of powers for the legislature to determine which interests should be weighed against the benefits of a new Sacramento arena. Furthermore, the court explained environmental review under CEQA was a statutory right created by the legislature, so the legislature had the authority to amend or even eliminate the right altogether.
Finally, the court held the trial court did not err in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing an imminent threat to public health and safety or to previously unknown historical, archaeological, or ecological values. Instead, Plaintiffs improperly argued a preliminary injunction would not cause harm to respondents.
Although the California Constitution includes an express separation of powers clause, the legislature does not violate the separation of powers when it amends a right that was created by statute and does not impair a core function of one of the branches of government. Accordingly, the legislature has the authority to establish the interests for courts to consider in deciding whether to issue an injunction pursuant to CEQA.
Section 21168.6.6 was established by Senate Bill (SB) 743. SB 743 also included separate statutory revisions for expedited review of environmental leadership development projects certified by the Governor. (See section 21185.) Section 21185, like section 21168.6.6, includes 270 days for judicial review. However, unlike section 21168.6.6, section 21185 does not provide that the 270-day requirement is applicable “to the extent feasible.” Thus, a petitioner may still argue – due to the absence of the feasibility language – that section 21185 is unconstitutional despite the court’s holding concerning section 21168.6.6.
In Town of Atherton v. Cal. High-Speed Rail Authority, (2014) Cal. App. LEXIS 670, the Court of Appeal for the Third District upheld the final program environmental impact report (EIR) for the segment of the California High Speed Rail project linking the San Francisco Bay Area to the Central Valley.
In the EIR, the California High Speed Rail Authority (the Authority) identified the Pacheco Pass route, which would direct the train west near Fresno, as the preferred alternative route to the Bay Area. The Authority also considered the Altamont Pass route, which would turn west closer to Stockton. Several environmental groups and cities on the San Francisco Peninsula (the Petitioner) challenged the EIR claiming that it violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the EIR did not adequately analyze options for locations to elevate the track along the Peninsula, used a flawed revenue and ridership model, and contained an inadequate range of alternatives.
Despite not raising the issue of preemption with the trial court, the Authority sought to dismiss the case because the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) preempted any CEQA remedy. The court held that it did not even need to address the “complex, difficult, and controversial subject” of ICCTA preemption because the market participant exception to preemption applied in the case. Under the market participant exception, because the state is acting as a market participant and building the project, rather than functioning as a regulator, the project is subject to CEQA review. While it was unusual for the Petitioner to invoke the market participant exception to compel a state agency to comply with state law, the court found no support for the Authority’s assertion that only the public agency could use the doctrine defensively to protect actions it elected to take in the market.
On the merits of the case, the court first held that the analysis of locations to elevate the track on the Pacheco Pass route was adequate for a program EIR. A program EIR allows for a tiering process of review where the program EIR provides coverage of general matters, followed by site-specific project-level EIRs that provide a more thorough analysis. In this case, the court stated that requiring project-level review of different sites for elevating the track would undermine the purpose of tiering and burden the program EIR with details that are more appropriate for a project EIR.
Next, the court held that the revenue and ridership model used in the EIR was adequate. While experts disagreed on the best model to use, the court stated that disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate and it would be improper for the court to determine the credibility of experts. As a result, Petitioner failed to satisfy its burden of showing that the model was “clearly inadequate or unsupported” and substantial evidence supported the Authority’s model.
Finally, the court rejected Petitioner’s argument that the Authority needed to include a broader range of alternatives in the EIR. Petitioner provided several additional alternatives through a European consulting firm, but the court stated that the Authority was not required to consider alternatives that were substantially similar to the alternatives already analyzed in the EIR. Further, the Authority’s feasibility determination was entitled to significant deference by courts. Each of Petitioner’s alternatives was either redundant or infeasible and as a result, the court held that the Authority considered an adequate range of alternatives in EIR.
The market participant doctrine is not just a doctrine for public entities to invoke defensively to refute preemption claims. As in this case, it can be used by private parties to force public entities to comply with state law.
Additionally, the court reinforced that the purpose of a program EIR is to provide decision-makers with an overview of the cumulative impacts of a project and allow for consideration of broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures early in the review process. It is inefficient and counterproductive to include more specific, project-level analysis in a program EIR when a tiered review process is being utilized.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.