Author Archives: Christina Berglund

SECOND DISTRICT UPHOLDS CLASS 1 EXEMPTION FOR PROJECT TO EXPAND SINGLE-FAMILY HOME

General Posted by   

In Arcadians for Environmental Preservation v. City of Arcadia (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 418, the Second District Court of Appeal upheld a finding by the City of Arcadia that a project to expand and add a second story to a single-family home was categorically exempt from CEQA. In doing so, the court concluded that petitioner failed to exhaust its administrative remedies regarding the scope of the exemption and failed to demonstrate that the city improperly relied on the exemption.

Background

Over a nearly two-year period beginning in June 2018, project applicant submitted, revised, and re-submitted an application to her homeowners’ association (HOA), seeking to expand the first floor of her single-family home and add a second floor. In April 2020, after the HOA’s architectural review board twice rejected her project, the applicant appealed the rejection to the city’s planning commission.

In May 2020, after a noticed hearing, the planning commission voted to conditionally approve the project, so long as various proposed changes were incorporated. The planning commission found that the project qualified for a Class 1 categorical exemption for modifications to existing structures.

The applicant’s neighbor appealed the planning commission’s approval to the city council. The city council upheld the planning commission’s decision.

The neighbor then formed the petitioner organization and filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the city’s compliance with CEQA. Shortly thereafter, the city filed a Notice of Exemption for the project. The trial court denied the petition. Petitioner appealed.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

The court held that (1) petitioner failed to exhaust its administrative remedies on the issue of whether the project was within the scope of the Class 1 exemption, (2) the city did not abuse its discretion by impliedly determining that no exceptions to the categorical exemption applied, and (3) petitioner failed to demonstrate that the cumulative impacts exception precluded the city’s reliance on the Class 1 exemption.

Failure to Adequately Exhaust

Petitioner argued that the city erred in determining the Class 1 exemption applied and cited the neighbor’s comments during his administrative appeal as support that petitioner had adequately exhausted on this issue. The court disagreed, reasoning that the neighbor (or anyone else) failed to articulate why the Class 1 exemption was inapplicable. Instead, the court noted that the neighbor made only “general references to potential environmental impacts” that did not fairly apprise the city of petitioner’s specific objection that the exemption did not apply.

The court rejected petitioner’s argument that its member had impliedly objected to the city’s exemption finding by requesting an EIR. The court conceded that a request for an EIR suggests a belief that no exemption applies but explained that such a request nevertheless does not adequately notify the agency about the substance of the challenge.

The court acknowledged that CEQA’s exhaustion requirement may be excused if the agency provides no opportunity for public comment or fails to give notice; however, it concluded that petitioner’s failure to exhaust was not excused in this case. Although the city did not consistently identify the specific subdivision of the Class 1 exemption that it relied on, the court concluded that this discrepancy was immaterial.

Exceptions to the Exemption

The court next rejected petitioner’s argument that the city failed to proceed in a manner required by law by failing to expressly consider whether an exception precluded the application of the Class 1 exemption. The court explained that the city’s determination that the Class 1 exemption applied necessarily included an implied finding that no exception precluded its application. The court reasoned that, while the city could not ignore contrary record evidence when making its finding, the finding did not need to be express.

After noting that there was “some question” whether petitioner’s comments during the administrative appeal preserved an argument that the cumulative impacts exception precluded the application of the Class 1 exemption, the court concluded that, regardless, that the argument failed on its merits.

The court concluded that petitioner’s general reference to “cumulative environmental effects caused by multiple large-scale projects,” along with identification of various nearby projects, did not amount to evidence of actual impacts that would result from the project and other nearby projects. The court rejected petitioner’s evidence that the cumulative impacts exception applied as “pure speculation” that could not, without more, preclude application of the Class 1 exemption.

Louisa Rogers

FIRST DISTRICT HOLDS EIR FOR UC BERKELEY’S LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND STUDENT HOUSING PROJECT INADEQUATE

General Posted by   

In Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 656, the First District Court of Appeal found the EIR for the UC Berkeley long range development plan (LRDP) and a student housing project inadequate. While the court rejected most of the petitioners’ claims, it held that the EIR failed to consider alternative locations for the housing project, and it did not analyze potential noise impacts caused by students in residential neighborhoods near campus.

Background

In 2021, UC Berkeley adopted the LRDP to guide the university’s development decisions through the 2036-2037 academic year. The LRDP estimated future enrollment levels for planning purposes, but did not establish any enrollment levels. In part, the LRDP provides a strategy to increase housing in response to both a decades-long housing crisis in the region and a projected future increase in the campus population.

Consistent with the LRDP, the UC Regents began planning two student housing projects. One of those projects is located at People’s Park, a historically significant landmark associated with social and political activism in Berkeley. People’s Park is now occasionally used as a venue for special events, but is predominantly used “by transient and unhoused people in multiple encampments” and “is afflicted with crime.”

The Regents certified a hybrid EIR including a program-level review of the approval and implementation of the LRDP as well as a project-level review of the two housing projects.

Petitioners Make UC a Good Neighbor and The People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group filed a petition for writ of mandate alleging the EIR violated CEQA. The trial court denied the petition. Petitioners appealed.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

The court rejected petitioners’ arguments that (1) the EIR’s analysis of alternatives to the LRDP was insufficient, (2) the EIR improperly restricted the LRDP’s geographical scope to the campus, and (3) the EIR’s treatment of impacts related to population growth and displacement of existing residents was flawed. However, the court agreed with petitioners that the EIR’s failure to consider alternative locations for the People’s Park housing project was not adequately justified. Additionally, the court concluded that the EIR did not adequately consider potential noise impacts from student parties on nearby residential neighborhoods.

LRDP Alternatives

The court concluded that the Regents did not violate CEQA by omitting an alternative to the LRDP that would limit student enrollment. The court explained that, because the complicated process for determining enrollment levels is separate from the LRDP process, any alternative requiring a cap in future enrollment levels would change the nature and scope of the plan. Given the constrained purpose of the LRDP to “guide future development regardless of the actual amount of future enrollment,” the EIR did not need to include a capped enrollment alternative.

Scope of LRDP

The court also rejected petitioners’ argument that the Regents improperly segmented the LRDP by focusing only on the campus and neighboring properties and excluding more distant locations. While petitioners argued that the LRDP arbitrarily omitted more remote properties, the court reasoned that it was “perfectly rational” for the Regents to focus primarily on the campus and adjacent properties in the LRDP and develop separate plans for more distant locations.

Population Growth and Displacement

Rejecting a third argument by petitioners, the court concluded that the EIR sufficiently addressed impacts from population growth and displacement of existing residents. The EIR found that the LRDP would induce unplanned population growth, but concluded that this impact could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by ensuring that the Regents provide local and regional planning entities with annual information about university-driven population growth. Despite petitioners’ assertion otherwise, the court declined to assume that these planning entities would fail to plan for the population growth projected in the LRDP.

Additionally, the court rejected petitioners’ argument that the EIR’s treatment of displacement impacts was inadequate. The court concluded that the EIR properly analyzed these impacts and that petitioners failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that displacement caused by the project would exacerbate homelessness and in turn lead to environmental impacts.

Site Alternatives to People’s Park

While the court found that the EIR sufficiently analyzed alternatives to the LRDP, it agreed with petitioners that the EIR failed to consider a reasonable range of alternative locations for the housing development at People’s Park. The EIR determined that the housing project would have a significant impact on historical resources, due to the demolition of People’s Park and construction of new housing that would be incompatible with other nearby historical resources. Nevertheless, the EIR did not contain an in-depth analysis of any alternative locations for the housing project.

The court concluded that the EIR’s reasons for declining to consider alternatives were insufficient. The EIR explained that an alternative location might reduce the amount of new housing or require the university to acquire new properties, and that many potential alternative sites were smaller than People’s Park or were close to historical resources. According to the court, these reasons were vague and unequivocal, and did not demonstrate that no feasible alternatives existed.

The Regents argued that developing another site would fail to meet one of the project’s primary objectives—to revitalize the People’s Park site—and the record demonstrated that this was one of the project’s main purposes. The court, however, noted that the cited objective referred generally to “a UC Berkeley property” and not to People’s Park, specifically. The court also determined that the Regent’s arguments for rejecting other locations, even if potentially valid, were not reflected in the EIR.  Similarly, the court concluded that the EIR did not support the Regents’ argument that all of the proposed housing sites would need to be developed to achieve the EIR’s objectives. Moreover, observing that these explanations differed from those in the EIR, the court concluded that the Regents “hid the ball” and failed to adequately inform the public about the project.

Noise impacts

Finally, the court held that the EIR was deficient because it did not analyze potential noise impacts from student parties. In doing so, it determined that substantial evidence in the record supported a fair argument that the LRDP and the housing projects might result in a significant noise impact.

The court acknowledged that “stereotypes, prejudice, and biased assumptions about people served by a CEQA project” cannot constitute substantial evidence for a CEQA claim; however, it rejected the Regents’ argument that concerns about noise impacts from student parties relied merely on improper stereotypes about “loud and unruly drunk college students.”

The court explained that the record revealed noise from student parties to be “a longstanding problem” in the residential neighborhoods near UC Berkeley’s campus. Among other things, the City of Berkeley had previously declared such parties to be a public nuisance and restricted high-density student housing in private homes, neighborhood groups pointed to hundreds of noise citations related to student parties, and the university itself had collaborated with various community groups to address complaints about noisy parties. Given the evidence demonstrating that student party noise was already a problem, the court concluded that there was a reasonable possibility that “adding thousands more students to these same residential neighborhoods would make the problem worse.”

Louisa Rogers

Federal District Court Holds the United States Army Corps of Engineers Violated the Endangered Species Act in Reissuing Nationwide Permit 12 Without Initiating Section 7 Consultation

General Posted by   

In Northern Plains Resource Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (D. Mont. 2020) 454 F.Supp.3d 985, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana overturned Nationwide Permit 12 (“NWP 12”). Of practical importance, the court’s ruling on this matter applies throughout the nation.

Under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), the Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) is authorized to issue general nationwide permits to streamline the permitting process for certain categories of activities. Nationwide permits may last up to five years, at which point they must be reissued or allowed to expire. NWP 12 authorizes impacts to waters of the United States as a result of construction, repair, maintenance, and removal of utility infrastructure. All nationwide permits, including NWP 12, are subject to 32 general conditions contained in the federal regulations. As relevant here, General Condition 18 prohibits the use of any nationwide permit for activities that are likely to directly or indirectly jeopardize threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat for such species under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.)

NWP 12 is one of 52 nationwide permits the Corps reissued in 2017. In reissuing NWP 12, the Corps determined that NWP 12 would result in no more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects on the aquatic environment under the CWA and further concluded that NWP 12 complied with both the ESA and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) (42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq.). The Corps determined there would be “no effect” to ESA-listed species or critical habitat and did not initiate consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife or National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively, the “Services”). Pursuant to NEPA, the Corps prepared an Environmental Assessment and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact.

Northern Plains Resource Council, et al. challenged the Corps’ action to reissue NWP 12, alleging it violated the ESA, NEPA, and the CWA.

Specifically, plaintiffs argued that the Corps’ failure to initiate programmatic consultation with the Services violated the ESA. The Corps, in response, contended that it did not need to conduct programmatic consultation because project-level review and General Condition 18 ensure that NWP 12 will not affect listed species or critical habitat. The court disagreed, finding there was substantial evidence supporting the contrary conclusion, therefore requiring the Corps to initiate consultation to ensure that activities authorized by NWP 12 complied with the ESA. The court emphasized that the Corps had acknowledged the many risks associated with discharges authorized by NWP 12 when it was reissued in 2017. For example, the Corps found that the construction of utility lines “will fragment terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems” and further stated that activities under NWP 12 “will result in a minor incremental contribution to the cumulative effects to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources.” Moreover, the Corps had initiated consultation when it reissued NWP 12 in 2007 and 2012. The court also relied on expert declarations submitted by plaintiffs stating that the Corps’ issuance of NWP 12 authorized discharges that may affect endangered species and their habitats.

The court further held that General Condition 18 fails to fulfill the Corps’ obligations under the ESA. General Condition 18 requires the permittee to submit a pre-construction notification to the district engineer if the permittee believes that its activity “might” affect listed species or critical habitat. The court found that this improperly delegated the Corps’ responsibility to make the initial effect determination under the ESA.

Holding that the Corps’ “no effect” determination and resulting failure to initiate consultation prior to reissuance of NWP 12 was arbitrary and capricious, the court remanded NWP 12 to the Corps for compliance with the ESA. The court determined that it need not decide the plaintiffs’ remaining claims as it anticipated that Section 7 consultation will inform the Corps’ assessment under NEPA and the CWA based on the findings of the consultation.

Second District Court of Appeal Upholds Dismissal of CEQA Action as Untimely

General Posted by   

On April 2, 2020, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District in Coalition for an Equitable Westlake/Macarthur Park v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 7 Cal.App.5th 368 affirmed the trial court’s decision sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend because the petitioner’s claims were barred by the famously short statute of limitations for actions brought under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)

On March 3, 2017, after holding a public hearing, the advisory agency for the City of Los Angeles approved a vesting tentative tract map for the Lake on Wilshire Project, a mixed-use project consisting of a hotel, a residential tower, and a multi-purpose center with a theater. Prior to approving the tentative map, the advisory agency adopted a mitigated negative declaration. The city filed a notice of determination (NOD) on March 15, 2017.

Subsequently, on October 12, 2017, the planning commission approved conditional use permits for the project—finding that no subsequent review was required. Two tenants of an existing building on the project site appealed the planning commission’s decision. The city council denied the appeals on January 31, 2018, and further adopted a resolution approving general plan amendments in connection with the project.

On March 2, 2018, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the approval of the MND as violating CEQA. The city and real parties in interest filed a demurrer. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend on the grounds that the petitioner’s claims were time-barred under CEQA for failure to seek relief within 30 days after the NOD was filed on March 15, 2017.

In holding that the petitioner’s suit was untimely, the court found that application of the statute of limitations bar to the petitioner’s challenge was straightforward. The petitioner did not bring the CEQA action until March 2, 2018, nearly a year after the city approved the tentative map and posted the NOD. The court explained that there were only two situations where the filing of a NOD would not trigger CEQA’s statute of limitations—if the NOD is invalid on its face because the information required by the CEQA Guidelines is missing or incorrect, or where the NOD is filed before a decision-making body has approved the project. The court found neither of those circumstances existed.

Rather, the petitioner had attacked the validity of the NOD based on the advisory agency’s authority to make CEQA finding, including that: (1) the planning commission (not the advisory agency) was responsible for initial project approval and CEQA review; (2) the advisory agency lacked authority under the municipal code to make CEQA findings; (3) the advisory agency’s CEQA decisions were not properly appealable to an elected body; and (4) the authority to approve the project was improperly bifurcated from the authority for CEQA approval. In rejecting this argument, the court, quoting the California Supreme Court’s decision in Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton (2010) 48 Cal.4th 481, 499, stated that the petitioner ‘confuses the timeliness of a lawsuit with its merits.’” To the extent a petitioner wished to challenge the advisory agency’s authority to make the initial project approval or adopt the MND, the court held that those arguments needed to be made within the applicable statute of limitations period. Because they were not, the petitioner was precluded from raising such arguments.

Second District Court of Appeal Upholds EIR for Refinery Project

General Posted by   

The Second District Court of Appeal upheld an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for a South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) permit for operational changes to two existing refinery facilities. (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 588.) Praising both the lead agency and the EIR, the Second District Court of Appeal considered and rejected four arguments made by petitioner. One justice dissented on the issue of baseline.

Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company proposed the Los Angeles Refinery Integration and Compliance Project (“project”), which would integrate two of Tesoro’s oil refining facilities so that Tesoro could more flexibly alter outputs of gasoline and jet fuel, and reduce emissions in order to reduce air pollution and increase compliance. The SCAQMD was required to issue a permit, which allowed the facility to generate more heat, for the project. The court described three key points about the permit: (i) it was a paper change only and did not allow for any physical changes to the heater or other hardware; (ii) it imposed new limitations on emissions; and (iii) it allowed the facility to either process a heavier blend of crude or increase throughput by 6,000 barrels per day, but not both. The project would also shut down a catalytic cracking unit, a major source of emissions.

The SCAQMD prepared and certified an EIR which determined that the project would reduce emissions by 36 percent. The court explained that the analysis of emissions was conservative, in part because the EIR assumed the heater had never operated above 252 million BTUs per hour, when in fact it had. The project also imposed limitations on emissions that did not exist before the project. Although, the project could increase throughput or weight of the crude blend, the facility could have no new emissions under the new permit.

The court cited the following facts as pertinent—the draft EIR included over 1,700 pages; the SCAQMD circulated the EIR for 49 days more than required, for a total of 94 days; the final EIR responded to 1,112 pages of comments with 5,700 pages of responses; the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) reviewed the EIR and indicated it had no objection to issuing the permit; and the EIR was “many thousands of pages” with the index alone being 180 pages.

Communities for a Better Environment (“CBE”) challenged the project alleging the EIR was inadequate. The trial court rejected CBE’s arguments and upheld the EIR. On appeal, CBE made four arguments.

Baseline

The court rejected CBE’s argument that the baseline was insufficient under CEQA. The EIR relied on a near-peak 98% baseline, based on an average of the refinery’s worst air pollution emissions during the two years leading up to the project, excluding the top two percent of the data in order to leave out extreme outliers. The EIR compared this 98th percentile analysis with impacts from the project and determined the project would reduce air pollution. CBE argued that CEQA requires an average-value baseline, but the court disagreed. The court emphasized that both peak and average can measure actual situations that truly exist, and there is no one “normal” way to measure the baseline. The court concluded that it was rational, and not “sinister or wrong,” to care most about the worst effects of air pollution, which occur when emissions hit their highest levels. Because EPA relies on a similar approach to regulate air pollution at the federal level, the court concluded the use of the 98th percentile baseline was supported by substantial evidence. One justice, however, dissented because federal custom and practice, which “appear[] to be the only substantial evidence found by the majority,” are not enough to support use of the 98th percentile as the baseline.

Pre-Project Crude Oil Composition

The court also rejected CBE’s argument that the EIR was required to provide the information regarding the existing composition of crude oil at the facility. The EIR explained that in order for the refinery to process a different blend of crude oil, the entire system would need to be changed. The EIR clarified that the project would not make these changes, so the court agreed there was no need to include information regarding the composition of crude oil. The project included a fixed crude operating envelope that would be the same before and after the project, and therefore the court agreed that baseline crude oil data was not necessary.

Failure to Exhaust

CBE argued that the SCAQMD was required to explain how it calculated the amount of additional oil that could be processed with the project. But, the court concluded, neither CBE nor anyone else had raised that exact issue before the SCAQMD, and therefore the issue could not be raised on appeal. The court emphasized that “[m]aking ‘broad’ requests that ‘encompass’ an issue raised on appeal is not raising the ‘exact issue’ during the administrative process.”

Existing Volume of Crude and Refinery’s Unused Capacity

Finally, the court concluded the EIR was not required to disclose the existing volume of crude or the refinery’s unused capacity because this data was immaterial to evaluating the project’s air pollution impact. The EIR explained that in order to increase the crude oil processing rate, the facility would need bigger pipes and stronger pumps. Because the project would not make these changes, it would not increase the refinery’s overall throughput. Data about the existing volume of crude processed and the refinery’s unused capacity, therefore, was not necessary.

California Supreme Court Holds Adoption of Zoning Ordinance for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries is a “Project” Subject to CEQA

General Posted by   

On August 19, 2019, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1171, in which the Court unanimously held that the City of San Diego’s adoption of a zoning ordinance for medical marijuana dispensaries is a “project” subject to CEQA. Although the Court agreed with the Fourth District Court of Appeal and the city in rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the adoption of a zoning ordinance is always a project, as a matter of law, under Public Resources Code section 21080, the Court reasoned that the adoption of the ordinance at issue was nonetheless the type of activity which, by its general nature, “is capable of causing a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” As such, the Court held, it is a “project” subject to CEQA.

Background

In 2014, the city adopted a zoning ordinance authorizing the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries in the city and imposing various restrictions on their location and operation. The ordinance specified zones where dispensaries are permitted, included a cap on the number of dispensaries in any one district, restricted their proximity to sensitive uses, and imposed basic conditions on lighting, security, and hours of operation. At the time the ordinance was proposed, the city determined that the adoption of the ordinance did not constitute a “project” for purposes of CEQA. The city, therefore, did not conduct any environmental review prior to adopting the ordinance.

Following the city’s adoption of the ordinance, petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the city’s decision not to conduct CEQA review. In the trial court, petitioner argued that the adoption of the ordinance should have been found to be a project under Public Resources Code section 21065, which defines a “project” as any activity undertaken or funded by, or requiring the approval of, a public agency that “may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” According to the petitioner, the ordinance had the potential, among other effects, to cause increased vehicle traffic across the city, increase user cultivation, and concentrate dispensary development-related impacts in certain areas. The trial court rejected petitioner’s arguments and upheld the city’s decision, finding the petitioner’s claims were unsupported by evidence in the record.

On appeal, petitioner reiterated its argument regarding the potential to cause physical changes in the environment, and further argued that the adoption of the zoning ordinance was a project as a matter of law under Public Resources Code section 21080. Section 21080 states that CEQA “shall apply to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but not limited to, the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances …” Pointing to this language, petitioner argued that the enactment of a zoning ordinance is automatically a project under CEQA, regardless of the potential for environmental change. Petitioner’s argument was based in part on the Third District’s decision in Rominger v. County of Colusa (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 690, where the court held that the county’s approval of a tentative map—another activity expressly listed in section 21080—was a project as a matter of law.

Notwithstanding Rominger, the Fourth District Court of Appeal rejected both of petitioner’s arguments, holding that the enactment of a zoning ordinance is subject to the same “project” test as any other activity under Public Resources Code section 21065. Further, the court found no error in the city’s conclusion that the zoning ordinance was not a project because it lacked the potential to cause a physical change in the environment. According to the Fourth District, the potential environmental effects raised by the petitioner were unsupported by the record and too speculative to establish a potential to physically change the environment.

The Supreme Court’s Review

Seeking to resolve the split between the Fourth District’s decision and Rominger, the Supreme Court granted review to address two issues: (1) whether, under Public Resources Code section 21080, a public agency’s enactment of a zoning ordinance is always project under CEQA, as a matter of law; and (2) whether the enactment of the city’s zoning ordinance was a “project” under section 21065.

The Court began its analysis by placing the dispute into context. As the Court explained, CEQA proceeds by way of a three-step process or “decision tree.” First, the lead agency must determine whether the proposed activity is a “project” subject to CEQA at all. Second, assuming CEQA applies, the agency must determine whether the project qualifies for one or more of the many CEQA exemptions. Third, assuming no exemptions apply, the agency must undertake environmental review, namely, preparation of an initial study and a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or an environmental impact report. At issue here was the very first step of the process—the city’s determination that the adoption of the zoning ordinance was not a “project” subject to CEQA at all.

Turning to the first issue, the Court agreed with the Fourth District that Public Resources Code section 21080 does not dictate the result as a matter of law. Engaging in a statutory interpretation analysis, the Court reasoned that while section 21080 is ambiguous when read in isolation, the Legislature’s use of the statutorily defined term “project” in that section must be read to incorporate the definition of “project” in section 21065. Accordingly, the language in PRC section 21080 that CEQA “shall apply to discretionary projects” must be read to provide that CEQA applies to activities that are both (1) discretionary; and (2) meet the definition of a “project” in section 20165. According to the Court, the specific activities listed in section 21080 are merely generic examples of the type of activities approved or carried out by public agencies to which CEQA could apply, however, the mere listing of an activity in that section does not supplant the potential “physical change” analysis required under section 21065.

The Court found further support for its reading of section 21080 in the definition of the term “project” in CEQA Guidelines section 15378, which makes clear the enactment of a zoning ordinance is merely an example of an activity undertaken by public agencies; policy considerations against subjecting activities to CEQA where there is no potential to effect the environment; and the legislative history of section 21065 revealing the Legislature’s intent to narrow CEQA’s application to activities posing a possibility of an environmental effect.

The Court also refuted the notion that its reading of the statute renders section 21080 mere surplusage, noting that the significance of section 21080 is that it states, in the affirmative, the additional requirement that projects must be “discretionary” for CEQA to apply.

After concluding that the adoption of a zoning ordinance is not a project as a matter of law, the Court turned to whether the adoption of the dispensary ordinance in this case was nonetheless a project subject to CEQA under Public Resources Code section 21065. The Court disagreed with the appellate court and answered the question in the affirmative.

As the Court explained, the governing decision for the “project” inquiry is Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372. In that case, the Court observed, “Whether an activity constitutes a project subject to CEQA is a categorical question respecting whether the activity is of a general kind with which CEQA is concerned, without regard to whether the activity will actually have environmental impact.” In other words, an agency’s task in determining whether a proposed activity is a project is to determine if, by its general nature, the activity is capable of a causing physical change in the environment, without regard to whether actual effects will occur under the circumstances.

Applying Muzzy Ranch, the Court held that the city erred in determining that the adoption of the zoning ordinance was not a project subject to CEQA. The Court noted that the ordinance would permit the establishment of a sizable number of new businesses, which could foreseeably result in new construction. Furthermore, the ordinance could cause changes in vehicle traffic patterns as a result of customers, employees, and suppliers. Finally, the Court explained, the necessary casual connection between the ordinance and these effects was satisfied because the adoption of the ordinance was “an essential step culminating in action . . . which may affect the environment.” For these reasons, the Court held, the adoption of the zoning ordinance was a “project” subject to CEQA.

Collin McCarthy

First District Court of Appeal Upholds EIR for Mixed-Use Development Project

General Posted by   

In the first published decision to apply the standard of review articulated by the Supreme Court in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch), the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision upholding an EIR for a mixed-use development project in South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321.

The project at issue is a mixed-use development that covers four acres of downtown San Francisco and seeks to provide office, retail, cultural, educational, and open-space uses for the property, to support the region’s technology industry and offer spaces for coworking, media, arts, and small-scale urban manufacturing. The city certified an EIR, which described two options for the project—an “office scheme” and a “residential scheme.” The office scheme had a larger building envelope and higher density than the residential scheme but all other project components were the same and the overall square footage was substantially similar. Several community organizations raised a variety of claims challenging the environmental review. The trial court denied relief and the petitioners appealed.

Applying the three “basic principles” set forth by the Supreme Court in Friant Ranch regarding the standard of review for the adequacy of an EIR, the First District held the EIR was legally adequate.

The court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the project description was inadequate because it presented multiple possible projects. The court found that the EIR described one project—a mixed use development involving retention or demolition of existing buildings and construction of new buildings—with two options for different allocations of residential and office units. The court also rejected petitioners’ argument that the final EIR adopted a “revised” project that was a variant of another alternative identified in the draft EIR—emphasizing that the CEQA reporting process is not designed to freeze the ultimate proposal in the precise mold of the initial project, but to allow consideration of other options that may be less harmful to the environment.

Petitioners alleged that the cumulative impacts analysis was flawed because the EIR used an outdated 2012 project list, developed during the “Great Recession,” which did not reflect a more recent increase in development. The court noted the petitioners did not point to any evidence to establish that the project list was defective or misleading or that the city had ignored foreseeable projects. Accordingly, the court held that the petitioners had not met their burden of proving the EIR’s cumulative impacts analysis was not supported by substantial evidence.

With respect to traffic, the petitioners argued the EIR was inadequate because it failed to (1) include all impacted intersections, (2) consider the impact of the Safer Market Street Plan (SMSP), and (3) adequately evaluate community-proposed mitigation measures and alternatives. The court rejected each argument in turn. First, the court found that the EIR’s explanation for selecting certain intersections and excluding others and the related analysis was supported by substantial evidence. The court further held that the city did not need to include the SMSP in the EIR because it was not reasonably foreseeable when the city initiated the EIR, nor was there evidence that the SMSP would have an adverse impact on traffic and circulation related to the project. Lastly, the court deferred to the city’s selection of alternatives because the petitioners had failed to meet their burden to show the nine alternatives evaluated in the EIR were “manifestly unreasonable.” Similarly, the court found the petitioners had failed to meet their burden to demonstrate their proposed alternatives were feasible and met most of the project objectives.

In addressing wind impacts, an argument petitioners failed to exhaust, the court found such impacts were appropriately addressed in the EIR. The court reasoned an alternative configuration was not required under the city’s comfort criterion for wind speed impacts because the exceedance of the comfort criterion did not establish significant impacts for CEQA purposes.

The court also rejected an argument that the project failed to provide onsite open space because the EIR explained that the project provided more space than the city code required and the impact related to demand on existing parks and open spaces would be less than significant.

The court further upheld the EIR’s shade and shadow analysis, finding no evidence in the record to support that sunlight on a park is not a “special and rare resource” warranting “special emphasis” under CEQA Guidelines section 15125.

The court also held that the city had made a good faith effort to discuss inconsistencies with the applicable general plans, noting that CEQA does not “mandate perfection.”

Finally, the petitioners claimed that the statement of overriding considerations was invalid because the city improperly considered the benefits of the project before considering feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The court disagreed, emphasizing that the project was modified to substantially conform to the identified environmentally superior alternative and stating that the revised project would not have been adopted if there had been no consideration of mitigation measures or alternatives.

Second District Court of Appeal Holds Brown Act’s “Committee Exception” for Public Comments Does Not Apply to Special Meetings

General Posted by   

In Preven v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 925, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s determination that the “committee exception” to the public comment requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) (Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.) apply to special meetings.

Appellant addressed the city’s planning and land use committee (“PLUM Committee”), which is comprised of five members of the 15-member city council, regarding a proposed real estate development near his residence. The committee voted to recommend approval to the full city council. At a special meeting held to consider approval of the committee’s recommendation, the city council refused to allow the appellant to speak because he had already spoken on the matter.

The Second District Court of Appeal found the city’s process to be in error. Generally speaking, the Brown Act requires a legislative body to provide an opportunity for public comment before its consideration of an item. Section 54953.3, subdivision (a) of the Government Code provides for what is commonly referred to as the “committee exception” to this requirement. Under this exception, a legislative body is not required to hear public comment, if the item has already been considered by a committee where the public was afforded the opportunity for comment.

Using general rules of statutory construction, the court found that the plain language of the statute specifies that the committee exception applies only to regular meetings, not special meetings. The court also rejected the city’s interpretation that the required opportunity for public comment before a legislative body takes action at a special meeting includes comments made at a prior separate meeting. The court found that such an interpretation rendered the committee exception superfluous. Finally, the court found support for its interpretation in the legislative history of the Brown Act, which demonstrated that the Legislature had purposefully made a number of distinctions between the requirements of regular and special meetings.

12