Thomas Law Blog

CEQA Updates

Keeping You Up-to-Date on the California Environmental Quality Act

Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Posts


EIR Addendum to Previously Certified EIR Proper Where No New Significant Environmental Impacts Identified

Wednesday, October 24th, 2018

In Save Our Heritage Organization v. City of San Diego (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 656, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held CEQA Guidelines section 15164 (Section 15164) validly establishes an addendum process that is consistent with the CEQA statute. Specifically, Section 15164 filled in gaps in Public Resources Code section 21166 and accurately implemented CEQA.

In 2012, the City of San Diego (City) approved the Plaza de Panama Project in Balboa Park (Project) and its accompanying EIR in order to restore pedestrian and park uses to the area. Save Our Heritage Organisation (SOHO) appealed the City’s actions related to this Project multiple times on many grounds, winning some and losing on others.

In 2016, the City adopted an addendum to the project EIR addressing several project modifications. These included: (1) bridge modifications to meet CalTrans requirements; (2) adding and redesigning storm water basins; (3) adding parking lot ventilation; (4) making energy efficiency upgrades; (5) increasing the elevation of the excavated soils landfill; and (6) refining construction design. The most significant aspect was that the modified project would add 93 more parking spaces than in the original Project and EIR.

The City reviewed the modified Project’s potential environmental impacts to land use, historical resources, aesthetics, transportation, air quality, biological resources, energy, geologic conditions, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, health and safety, and hazardous materials. The City concluded that there were: (1) no substantial changes to the project requiring major revisions to the EIR because of new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances requiring major revisions to the EIR because of new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; and (3) no new, previously unknown or unknowable, information of substantial importance showing: (a) new or substantially more severe significant efforts than were discussed or shown in the EIR; (b) that previously infeasible mitigation measures/alternatives are now feasible and would substantially reduce significant efforts; or (c) that considerably different mitigation measures than analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce significant effects. As such, the City approved the modifications with no additional EIR and on the basis of an addendum. SOHO filed suit. The trial court denied the petition. SOHO timely appealed.

Reviewing the agency’s action for abuse of discretion, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s holding. SOHO’s chief claim was that the addendum process, codified in Section 15164, was an invalid extension of the CEQA statute. Section 15164 provides, in pertinent part, “(a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in [Guideline] 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. …(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR…. (d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR… prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to [Guideline] 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record.  The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.”  The Resources Agency’s discussion of Section 15164 states it was “designed to provide clear authority for an addendum as a way of making minor corrections in EIRs… without recirculating the EIR” and that “[Section 15164] provides an interpretation with a label and an explanation of the kind of document that does not need additional public review.”

The Court held that, under established case law, Section 15164, like any agency action, carries a presumption of validity and the challenging party has the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. Presented with the challenge, the Court is to consider “whether…[the regulation] is (1) consistent with and not in conflict with CEQA, and (2) reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of CEQA.” This analysis depends on whether the regulation is a quasi-legislative regulation or an interpretive regulation. The Court pointed out that no Supreme Court case has definitively said that the CEQA Guidelines are quasi-legislative or interpretive and declined to say so itself. Instead, the Court held it need not decide the issue in order to resolve the case because SOHO had not met their burden to establish Section 15164 was invalid.

While the Court agreed that CEQA does not expressly authorize the addendum process described in Section 15164, the Court stated that the process “fills a gap” in the CEQA process for projects with a previously certified EIR. Further, “CEQA authorizes the Resources Agency to fill such gaps in the statutory scheme, so long as it does so in a manner consistent with the statute.” The Court held Section 15164 is consistent with and furthers the objectives of CEQA section 21166 by requiring an agency to substantiate its reasons for determining why project revisions do not necessitate further environmental review. “The addendum process reasonably implements section 21166’s objective of balancing the consideration of environmental consequences in public decision making with interests of finality and efficiency.” After EIR certification, “the interests of finality are favored over the policy of encouraging public comment.” As such, the EIR addendum regulation was in line with the spirit of CEQA and a natural extension of the statutory scheme.

To this point, the Court noted that the Section 15164 was first promulgated in 1983 and the Legislature has never modified CEQA to eliminate it, strongly indicating consistency with legislative intent.

Lastly, the Court easily dismissed SOHO’s argument that additional findings were required for the City to approve the addendum. Such findings were already made in adopting the original EIR and “an addendum is only proper where no new significant environmental impacts are discovered.” Here, where no new significant environmental impacts were discovered, an addendum was proper and findings were not necessary.

The Court affirmed the trial court judgement finding the EIR addendum valid.

Key Point:

An addendum to a previously certified EIR is proper where there no new significant environmental impacts are discovered.

Second District Prohibits Preparation of Subsequent EIR Where Project-level EIR Covered All “Reasonably Foreseeable Consequences” of Later Plan-level Project; Spot-Zoned Target Store Permissible Where in Public Interest

Thursday, August 23rd, 2018

In Citizens Coalition Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, (2018) 26 Cal. App. 5th 561, the Second District Court of Appeal held that the City of Los Angeles’s (City) reliance on an addendum to a prior project-level EIR prepared for a Target store was legally sufficient environmental review for the approval of a later ordinance amending a specific plan applicable to the area containing the Target store. The City’s reliance on the Target EIR and addendum was permissible where the new ordinance did not present “reasonably foreseeable consequences” beyond those presented in the Target EIR.

The City completed an EIR for a Target store and then later passed an ordinance that amended its neighborhood-based specific plan to create a new subzone for large commercial development, and placed the half-built Target store into that new subzone. In passing the ordinance, the City relied on an addendum to the Target store EIR. Citizens Coalition Los Angeles (Citizens) filed suit.

Citizens alleged that the City’s actions violated CEQA by failing to conduct subsequent environmental review when creating the new subzone. The trial court held that the City violated CEQA for treating the action as a follow-on to its prior, initial approval of the Target store. The City and Real Party in Interest, Target Corporation, timely appealed.

The Appellate Court outlined that, where an EIR has been prepared, Public Resource Code section 21166 provides a supplemental EIR may only be required where new information comes to light or there is a substantial change to the project plans or project circumstances that requires a “major revision” to the EIR. Relying on Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District, (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 937, the Court found that only where one of the exceptions of Public Resources Code section 21166 applies may a new EIR be required. If an EIR “retains any relevance in light of the proposed changes,” then an addendum is proper, not a subsequent EIR.

The Court, relying on CEQA Guidelines section 15162 for direction, asked “[did] the existing CEQA document encapsulate all of the environmentally significant impacts of the project?” Further environmental review was only required if the later action was not a “reasonably foreseeable consequence” of the original project-level EIR. The Court awarded “greater deference to a public agency’s determination … than they [would for] whether initial CEQA review is required.”

The Court clarified that a “reasonably foreseeable consequence” is where “that consequence is, as a practical matter, sufficiently certain to happen.” The Court then outlined five such situations: (1) where an agency has already committed itself to undertake the consequence; (2) where a project presupposes the occurrence of consequence – where a consequence is a necessary and essential component of the project itself; (3) where a consequence is already under environmental review; (4) where an agency subjectively intends or anticipates the consequence; and (5) where an agency creates an incentive that is all but certain to result in a consequence.

Here, the Court found that substantial evidence supported the City’s finding that the sole reasonably foreseeable consequence of the ordinance was the construction of the Target store. Evidence in the administrative record showed that the City had not committed to any other large-scale commercial development on parcels meeting the ordinance criteria.  As such, Public Resources Code section 21166 did not merit subsequent or supplemental EIR as all of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the ordinance had been addressed in the prior EIR and addendum. The Court further clarified that it did not matter that, though unconventional, the plan-level project relied on a project-level EIR.

Having settled the adequacy of the City’s environmental review, the Court then determined that the ordinance did not constitute impermissible spot zoning because extensive evidence in the record showed that the location of the store was in the public interest. Relying on Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange, (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1302, the Court defined an island or spot zoning as where a parcel of land is rezoned to give it fewer or greater rights than parcels around it. In reviewing such claims, the Court’s focus is on if the City’s discretionary action is in the public interest. Only where an island is arbitrary, irrational, or unreasonable will it be impermissible. Here, record evidence showed demonstrated numerous benefits of the store being part of a shopping complex near pedestrian walkways and public transportation. Thus, the City’s action was in the public interest.

The Appellate Court reversed the trial court holding. In a separate holding, the Appellate Court awarded attorneys fees to Citizens’ co-petitioners, La Mirada Neighborhood Association. Read more about that in our blog post “Private Attorney General Doctrine Attorney’s Fees Proper For Party Successful in Invalidating Specific Plan Variances

Note that this case was originally published by the Appellate Court and then depublished by the Supreme Court at the same time that the Supreme Court denied review.

Key Point:

Public Resources Code section 21166 prohibits an agency from preparing a subsequent EIR where a project-level EIR covered all “reasonably foreseeable consequences” of a later plan-level project.

A city’s action to spot zone is evaluated by the court for being in the public interest, with great deference given to the city’s determination.

Second Appellate District Upholds PG&E Lease Extension as Categorically Exempt from CEQA, Finds Unusual Circumstance Exception Inapplicable to Extension of Nuclear Power Plant Lease

Wednesday, June 13th, 2018

In World Business Academy v. California State Lands Commission (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 476, the Second Appellate District determined that renewing a lease for an existing power plant constituted a categorically exempt “existing structure” project under CEQA and the record did not support an “unusual circumstances” exception to the exemption.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant is a nuclear power plant that has been in operation since 1985 but is set to close by 2025. Owned and operated by PG&E in San Luis Obispo County, the plant’s cooling system draws in seawater as well as incidental aquatic plants and animals from state-owned tidal and submerged lands then expels heated water back into the sea. The leases for the water intake and discharge systems were to expire in 2018 and 2019.

PG&E submitted a single lease renewal application to the California State Lands Commission (Commission) to replace the expiring leases (Project). A staff report confirmed the Project would not require additional environmental review under the existing facilities exemption (CEQA Guidelines, § 15301) unless it was found to be an unusual circumstance meriting exception (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(c)). After weighing the potential seismic and environmental impacts, the Commission found that the Project would not have a new significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, moved to support the staff report, and issued a notice of exemption for the lease renewal.

World Business Academy filed suit alleging that the Commission’s actions violated CEQA where the lease approval would irreparably injure and deplete the marine ecosystem surrounding the plant. The trial court held the lease replacement fell squarely within the existing facilities exemption to CEQA and the unusual circumstances exception did not apply. World Business Academy timely appealed.

The Appellate Court affirmed the Commission’s lease approval under the existing facilities exemption.

The Court determined the Project was exempt from CEQA review as an existing facility, per CEQA Guidelines section 15301. Appellants argued that unlike other existing utility structures, nuclear power plant projects cannot be categorically exempt from CEQA because of the significant environmental impacts they have by their de facto operation. Further, the legislative history of the exemption indicated the meaning of “provide electric power” implicated structures which disseminate power, not power generating facilities themselves. The Court disagreed. Under the plain meaning of the statute, “provide electric power” reasonably included a power plant.

The Court rejected a related argument that the Commission lacked the authority to consider nuclear power plants under the exemption due to their operational environmental impacts. The Court found that minor alterations to, continued operation of, and leasing pre-CEQA facilities resulting in negligible or no expansion of use are unlikely to cause a new, significant adverse change in environmental conditions. Further, the class of projects at issue in the existing facilities exemption are not only nuclear power plants—rather, the exemption is applied to existing facilities of all types. The Court concluded that the Commission’s evaluation of the lease extension, while brief, was sufficient to demonstrate that the lease extension would maintain the status quo at the existing facility and not expand its operations.

The Court then looked at the unusual circumstances exception to the exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(c). The Court found that the Commission incorrectly applied the Berkeley Hillside two-pronged test (described above in Don’t Cell Our Parks) but this was not fatal to the Commission’s determination.

Turning to the substance of the unusual circumstance analysis, the Court found that the Project was not an unusual circumstance based on its size and location. The Commission acted properly by considering the existing baseline for the Project and World Business Academy failed to point to specific evidence supporting the claim that impacts to aquatic life would be significantly increased past the existing operational level of the plant or certain risks – seismic activity, terrorist threats, “embrittleing” and others—would now occur. World Business Academy’s claim that the plant constituted a significant environmental effect because it was the last one of its kind in the state was irrelevant. The Court dismissed this and dismissed World Business Academy’s ad hominem attack against PG&E which alleged criminal conduct outside of the established record.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgement of the trial court.

Key Point:

The existing facilities exemption allows pre-CEQA power plants (regardless of power source) undergoing non-significant changes to avoid additional environmental review. The proper baseline to determine if a change is significant is not established by present-day or forecasted analysis, rather, by the environmental impact the facility had when it began operations.

Supplement to 16 year old EIR is Acceptable, Project Proponents Need Not Address Every Comment Following Public Review.

Tuesday, July 7th, 2015

In City of Irvine v. County of Orange, (July 6, 2015, G049527)__Cal.App.4th__, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the adequacy of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared approximately 16 years after the original EIR was adopted. The court granted publication on July 7, 2015.

The dispute began in 1996 when the City of Irvine (Irvine) challenged the County of Orange’s (County’s) certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) involving the expansion of the Musick Facility (Musick). The Musick facility is a 1,200 inmate jail, and the proposed expansion would make it a 7,584 inmate jail. In Musick I, the court held that the 1996 EIR was adequate, but the project fell through for financial reasons.

In 2011, newly available state funding revived the Musick project. Irvine immediately challenged the County’s application for state funding, alleging that the application for funding itself required an EIR. In Musick II, the court held that there was no need for a new EIR just to apply for state funds.

The County then prepared an SEIR to the 1996 EIR.  The SEIR reflects major changes that have taken place in the area surrounding Musick over the 16 years separating the two documents. First, a proposed airport that was supposed to be built next to the facility was scrapped in favor of a large park. Second, agricultural land around the facility and in the County almost entirely disappeared. Following the County’s certification of the SEIR, Irvine immediately sued, seeking a writ of mandate to invalidate the SEIR, but the trial court denied Irvine’s petition.

On appeal, Irvine raised four arguments: (1) the changes since the 1996 EIR warranted a new EIR, (2) the EIR’s traffic study was inadequate, (3) the mitigation measures for the loss of agricultural land were inadequate, and (4) the County’s responses to comments on SEIR were inadequate. The court of appeal disagreed with Irvine on all its arguments and held for the County.

Irvine argued that the significant changes between the 1996 EIR and SEIR warranted a new EIR altogether. The court disagreed.  While the CEQA Guidelines state that a lead agency “may” prepare a supplemental EIR where “[o]nly minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequate to apply to the project in the changed situation” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15163), the court noted that a “subsequent” EIR and a “supplemental” EIR are statutorily similar in their requirements.   Moreover, the court explained that the appropriate judicial approach is to look to the substance of the EIR, not its nominal title.

Next, Irvine challenged the SEIR’s traffic study. It alleged that the SEIR is inconsistent in its descriptions of project phasing because it uses 2014 as the date an initial phase of the prison expansion would be completed when the evidence demonstrates the initial phase will not be completed until 2018.  While the court acknowledged an accurate, stable and finite project description is critical, the court explained that evaluation of interim traffic impacts based on anticipated future construction necessarily cannot be predicted with certainty.  Furthermore, the court concluded even if delays in the start of construction resulted in discrepancies, it was nothing more than an “insubstantial and technical error.”

Irvine also alleged that the mitigation measures for the loss of agricultural land were inadequate. But, the court noted that the price of land in the County had far outgrown any feasible level for agriculture to remain profitable. The court noted that a land price of $60,000 per acre is approximately the break-even point for agricultural profitability, and land in the County was averaging $2 million per acre in 2012.

Finally, Irvine argued that the County’s allegedly deficient responses to their comments on the SEIR required a new EIR. Irvine had submitted 88 comments on SEIR, and challenged eight of the responses given by the County. The court noted that the CEQA Guidelines do not specifically require responses to comments, only responses to “significant environmental issues raised.” The court explained:

When a comment raises a “significant” environmental issue, there must be some genuine confrontation with the issue; it can’t be swept under the rug. Responses that leave big gaps in the analysis of environmental impact are obviously inadequate. By the same token comments that bring some new issue to the table need genuine confrontation. And comments that are only objections to the merits of the project itself may be addressed with cursory responses.

The court held that many of Irvine’s comments were “objections to the merits of the project” that the County adequately addressed with cursory responses. For the remaining comments, the court found the County’s responses to be adequate.  The court noted further that the case was “drowning in ‘paperwork’” and Irvine failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the alleged inadequate responses.

Key Point

Age does not automatically render an EIR invalid.  Additionally, the appropriate judicial approach to evaluating an EIR is to look to its substance, not its nominal title.  Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines only require responses to “significant environmental issues raised.”  Comments that do nothing but object to the project’s merits may be addressed with cursory responses.

Fourth Appellate District Publishes Opinion Requiring Supplemental EIR for San Diego County’s Climate Action Plan

Monday, January 12th, 2015

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/.

Court Orders Supplemental EIR for Ventura County Medical Center Building Due to 15 Foot Increase in Building Height

Monday, January 12th, 2015

In Ventura Foothill Neighbors v. County of Ventura (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 429, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s decision requiring Ventura County (the County) to prepare a supplemental environmental impact report (EIR) to evaluate the impacts associated with increasing the height of a medical office building previously approved to be developed within the Ventura County Medical Center from 75 feet to 90 feet.

The County originally approved an EIR in 1993 stating the building would have a maximum height of 75 feet. In 2005, the County prepared an addendum to the 1993 EIR to evaluate potential impacts of relocating the building a few hundred feet northwest from the original location. The addendum only addressed relocation of the building and did not disclose that the building height would increase by twenty percent.   The County filed a Notice of Determination (NOD) after approving both the original 1993 EIR and the 2005 addendum. In May of 2008, a community group known as Ventura Foothill Neighbors, learned about the change in height when a citizen noticed equipment at the construction site and inquired what was being built. Approximately two months after discovering the change, Ventura Foothill Neighbors filed a petition for writ of mandate and sought a preliminary injunction to stop construction of the building.  The trial court declined to enjoin construction and the County completed the building in 2010.

The key question before the court was whether the statute of limitations expired before Ventura Foothill Neighbors filed its lawsuit.  The County argued that the lawsuit should be viewed as a challenge to the 1993 EIR or at least the 2005 addendum and, therefore, the lawsuit was filed well after the 30 day statute of limitation ran under either of the NODs.  The court disagreed. The court reasoned filing of the NOD triggers a 30-day window for all CEQA challenges “to the decision announced in the notice.” In this case, neither the 1993 EIR nor the 2005 addendum mentioned the change in height of building. As a result, respondent had 180 days from when it “knew or reasonably should have known the project differed substantially from the one described in the EIR.”  As Ventura Foothill Neighbors discovered the change in May of 2008 and filed its lawsuit in July of 2008, the lawsuit was timely.

The court also held the change in height from 75 feet to 90 feet constituted a substantial change in the project requiring a major revision in the EIR.  Therefore, the court concluded that the County should have prepared a supplemental EIR to analyze the impacts associated with the change in height.

KEY POINT

An NOD filed creates a short statute of limitations to challenge actions of the lead agency pursuant to CEQA.  However, an NOD only covers the project as defined in the NOD and associated environmental document (e.g. EIR, addendum, etc.).  To avoid uncertainty and reduce the potential for future litigation, a lead agency should make sure to clearly define the project in an NOD and associated environmental document.

Appellate Court Requires Supplemental EIR for San Diego County’s Climate Action Plan

Monday, November 17th, 2014

In an unpublished decision in Sierra Club v. County of San Diego, 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7762, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District granted a writ of mandate to enforce a mitigation measure in San Diego County’s (County) 2011 general plan update to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the County.

In response to the mandate in AB 32 that the state reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, the County adopted a series of climate change-related mitigation measures.  One such mitigation measure was CC-1.2, which required the County to prepare a climate action plan (CAP) that included more detailed GHG emissions targets and deadlines to reduce the County’s GHG emissions in accordance with AB 32.

Sierra Club contended the CAP adopted by the County violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by failing to include adequate analysis of the environmental impacts and failing to comply with the requirements of Mitigation Measure CC 1.2. Sierra Club also challenged the County’s related guidelines that permitted projects that fall below a bright line threshold (hereafter “Thresholds Project”) to avoid detailed GHG analysis in future project-level environmental documents. The court found that the County failed to comply with CC-1.2 for three reasons. First, the CAP did not include enforceable GHG emissions as required by CC 1.2. Instead, the County described the emissions reductions strategies as “recommendations.” Second, the CAP did not contain “more detailed deadlines” as required by CC 1.2 and instead included only the final 2020 goal without incremental emissions objectives. The County also failed to cite any specific evidence in the record that people would participate in the programs to achieve the target reductions.

The court also found the County failed to make adequate finding regarding the environmental impact of the CAP and Thresholds project. The County improperly assumed the CAP and Thresholds project was part of the general plan update so the County did not analyze the environmental impacts of the CAP and Thresholds project itself. Because the general plan update’s plan-level EIR did not analyze the CAP and Thresholds project, the court required the County to complete a separate EIR.

The court next concluded the County violated CEQA section 21081.6 by failing to incorporate mitigation measures directly into the CAP. Section 21081.6 requires public agencies to include enforceable mitigation measures directly into the adopted plans.  

Finally, the court held there was no substantial evidence to support the County’s conclusion that a supplemental EIR was not required. The details of the CAP were not available during the completion of the Program EIR for the general plan update. As a result, key elements such as baseline GHG emission levels and monitoring programs were not considered in the Program EIR. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision that a supplemental EIR was required to ascertain the environmental impacts of the CAP and Thresholds project.


 

Addendum Upheld: Amendments to San Jose Airport Master Plan Cleared For Landing

Monday, July 21st, 2014

In Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) Cal. App. LEXIS 588, the Court of Appeal for the Sixth District upheld the trial court’s denial of a writ of mandate challenging the City of San Jose’s (the City) approval of an addendum to an EIR analyzing the environmental impacts of amendments to San Jose Airport’s Master Plan (Airport Master Plan).

The City began updating the Airport Master Plan in 1988 to accommodate the projected growth at the airport.  The City approved the final environmental impact report (EIR) for the update in 1997.  From 1997 to 2010 eight addenda to the Airport Master Plan EIR were approved, with the eighth addendum considering the impacts changes to the size and location of planned air cargo facilities and modifications to the taxiing area of the runway.

Citizens Against Airport Pollution (CAAP) contended that the City violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in approving the eighth addendum because the amendments to the Airport Master Plan were so significant that they constituted a new project for purposes of CEQA.  CAAP further contended that the 1997 EIR was a program EIR, as opposed to a narrower project EIR, and that a new EIR should be completed.  The court declined to determine whether the 1997 EIR was a project-level EIR or a broader program EIR, but held that there was substantial evidence to support the City’s finding that the amendments to the Airport Master Plan would not have a significant effect on noise, air quality, or the burrowing owl habitat as CAAP contended.

Relying on an analysis in the addendum that showed a decrease in daily aircraft operations and improved airplane technology resulting in quieter aircraft, the court found that there was substantial evidence that the amendments to the Airport Master Plan would not result in significant noise impacts.

Similarly, the projected decrease in aircraft operations resulted in no significant impact to air quality.  CAAP did not dispute the projected decrease in aircraft operations, thus the court found that there was substantial evidence to support the City’s findings that the impact on air quality was sufficiently analyzed in the 1997 EIR.

The court also found that there was substantial evidence to support the City’s findings that the amendments to the Airport Master Plan would not have a significant impact on the burrowing owls nesting in the unpaved portions of the airfield.  The 1997 EIR had concluded that implementation of the Airport Master Plan would impact the burrowing owl, which is a species of concern in California.  However, the EIR also included a Burrowing Owl Management Plan that established protected sections of the airfield and required biologists to monitor the burrowing owls in the area among other measures.  The eighth addendum included mitigation measures that were consistent with the Burrow Owl Management Plan and even provided for the construction of one-way doors to ensure that no burrowing owls would be trapped in their burrows when construction began.  As a result, the court held that the impact on the burrowing owl population at the airport was not substantially different than the impact considered in the 1997 EIR.

The court also rejected CAAP’s argument that a supplemental EIR was required to analyze greenhouse gas emissions.  A 2010 CEQA amendment requires lead agencies to make a “good-faith effort” to estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from a project.  (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4.)  However, CEQA does not require a supplemental EIR unless new information becomes available that was not known when the original EIR was completed.  The court held that the potential impact of greenhouse gas emissions was widely known in 1997 when the EIR was completed and in 2003 when a supplemental EIR was completed.  Therefore, the potential impact of greenhouse gases did not constitute new information and a supplemental EIR was not required.

KEY POINT

Once an EIR is completed for a project, a court applies the substantial evidence standard of review to determining whether project changes require a supplemental EIR.  If the lead agency can show there is substantial evidence to support a finding that there will be no significant impacts, the court will permit an addendum to the original EIR instead of a supplemental EIR.

Court of Appeal Views Appellants’ Failure to Present and Discredit Evidence favorable to the Agency as a Concession that Substantial Evidence Does In Fact Support Agency

Tuesday, July 17th, 2012

In an unpublished decision, El Pueblo Para El Aire Y Agua Limpio v. Kings County Board of Supervisors, 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4984, Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice and El Pueblo Para El Aire y Agua Limpio (collectively appellants) sued the Kings County Board of Supervisors (County) alleging that the County’s approval of a project to expand an existing hazardous waste disposal facility violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Appellants also presented civil rights causes of action under Government Code sections 11135, 12955, and 65008. The Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court, finding that the CEQA claim was properly rejected and upholding demurrers to the civil rights causes of action.

The court first concluded that appellants’ claims of CEQA noncompliance were not persuasive. Appellants attacked the County’s final subsequent environmental impact report (FSEIR) in three respects: (1) the health-related impacts were not sufficiently analyzed; (2) the daily truck traffic baseline used was inflated; and (3) the cumulative impacts analysis did not include all the relevant information and was thus underestimated. Pertaining to the first claim, appellants alleged that the County did not have sufficient information to judge the project’s true impacts on public health, the County should have conducted an additional health survey, and the County had an obligation to reexamine the project’s impacts due to new information brought to light by the Greenaction health study.

The court first explained that appellants had waived their claims by failing to adhere to the well-established principle that when an appellant is challenging an EIR for insufficient evidence, the appellant must lay out the evidence favorable to the other side and then show why it is lacking. Appellants’ failure to present all the evidence was viewed by the court as a “concession” that there was, in fact, substantial evidence to support the County’s findings.

The court next held that the County properly refused to conduct an additional health test as requested by appellants. “CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test … recommended or demanded by commentors” (El Pueblo Para El Aire Y Agua Limpio v. Kings County Board of Supervisors, 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4984 at 47). Since the court found that the FSEIR reflected an adequate, good faith effort to ascertain the project’s potential impacts on public health, the court concluded that the County did not need to conduct an additional test. The court further explained that the county’s response to the requests for an additional test adequately explained why the County had refused to conduct another test, supporting the County’s decision with substantial evidence.

Lastly, the court explained that the County did not need to recirculate its EIR. Appellants’ argument rested on their belief that the Greenaction health survey presented new information, thus changing the environmental setting of the project from the one analyzed in the FSEIR. However, using the CEQA definition of “environmental setting,” which is “the surrounding physical conditions such as topography, air quality, plant life and water resources,” the court concluded that since the information from the survey was about birth defects, there was no change in the project’s environmental setting. (Id. at 61-62). There was no new information presented, therefore the County’s decision not to recirculate the DSEIR was supported by substantial evidence as well.

Appellants’ second and third claims that the truck traffic baseline and the cumulative impacts analyses were inadequate under CEQA were both rejected by the court under the exhaustion doctrine. By failing to raise the two claims either during the administrative proceedings or in the appeal letter, the court explained that these claims were forfeited due to appellants’ failure to exhaust all the available administrative remedies before bringing the suit to court.

The court also addressed non-CEQA, civil rights causes of action under Government Code sections 11135, 12955, and 65008. All three of these causes of action were rejected. The court explained that the appellants were trying to use the statutes in situations that were beyond their scope as defined by each statute itself along with interpretations used by other courts in previous cases. Therefore, the trial court’s holding and the County’s approval of the expansion of the hazardous waste site were reaffirmed.

Written By: Tina Thomas, Ashle Crocker and Grant Taylor (law clerk)
___________
For questions relating to this blog post or any other California land use, environmental and/or planning issues contact Thomas Law Group at (916) 287-9292.

The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Thomas Law Group, nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.

Silverado Modjeska Recreation and Parks Dist. v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 282

Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012

Upon receiving a writ of mandate from the trial court in 2003, Orange County (County) prepared a supplemental EIR (SEIR) for its Silverado Ranch Canyon Project (Project). Petitioner challenged the County’s approval of the project claiming that the SEIR did not comply with the writ issued in 2003, and that the discovery of new information about the arroyo toad required recirculation of the SEIR under CEQA. The trial court found in favor of the County. On appeal in a plurality opinion the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision. First, the Court explained that the Petitioner should have challenged the trial court’s ruling discharging the writ rather than filing a new lawsuit. Because Petitioner did not challenge the trial court’s ruling the Appellate Court held that the Petitioner’s claim was barred by res judicata. The Court explained that res judicata bars re-litigation of causes of action that were previously decided between the same parties. Next, the Court addressed whether the SEIR should have been recirculated due to the possible presence of the arroyo toad. Citing to Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 112, the Court explained that recirculation of an EIR is required only if new information is added that involves either a new substantial environmental impact from the project, a substantial increase in severity of an environmental impact from the project, or new proposed mitigation measure. In this case, the Court found that the new information added to the SEIR did not fall into any of those three categories. The issues added were already discussed in the original EIR, therefore recirculation is not required. Lastly, the Court addressed whether an agreement between the parties in 2003 established that the Petitioner must pay the developers’ attorneys’ fees and costs in this litigation. The Court concluded fees were not owed because the developer did not comply with the notification and cure requirements relating to a breach of the agreement prior to seeking fees.

Key Point:

Petitioners commonly challenge revised EIRs prepared by lead agencies to comply with writs issued in CEQA litigation. The scope of review in, and the applicability of res judicata principles to, such challenges is commonly debated. This decision is important for any agency faced with such a challenge.