Blog

First District Holds City of San Mateo’s Denial of an Application for a Multifamily Building Violated California’s Housing Accountability Act

General Posted by   

In a landmark decision, California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, the First District Court of Appeal held that the City of San Mateo violated the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) in denying a proposed multi-family housing project based on the city’s concerns that the project’s height and scale conflicted with the city’s design standards. The court held that because the city’s design standards are subjective, rather than objective, those standards could not serve as a basis to deny the application under the HAA. The court also upheld the HAA against challenges that it infringed upon the city’s and neighboring property owners’ rights under the California Constitution.

Background

Nearly 40 years ago, the Legislature passed the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), also known as the “Anti-NIMBY” law with the goal of “meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (a)(2)(K).) The HAA provides that local governments may only deny an application to build housing if the proposed housing project does not comply with “objective” general plan, zoning, and design review standards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(i).) In 2017, the Legislature added weight to this requirement by specifying that a housing development is deemed to comply with a municipality’s objective standards if “substantial evidence … would allow a reasonable person to conclude” that the project is consistent with those standards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (f)(4).)

In 2015, a developer applied to the City of San Mateo to build a ten-unit, multifamily residential building on a site surrounded by single-family residences. The site is designated for high-density multifamily residential in the city’s general plan and zoning code. The city’s planning staff concluded that the project was consistent with the city’s general plan and zoning code standards for multifamily dwellings and with the city’s design guidelines. Staff recommended the planning commission approve the project.

The application came before the planning commission in August, 2017. At the hearing, several city residents objected to the project, opining that it was too large for the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood. After continuing the hearing, the planning commission voted to deny the application, agreeing with neighboring residents that the building was out of scale with neighboring single-family homes. The commission directed staff to prepare findings that the project is inconsistent with the city’s design guidelines because it is not in scale and not in harmony with the character of the neighborhood and that the building is too tall and bulky for the site. More specifically, the commission observed that there is a two-story differential between the project and adjacent single-family dwellings, which is inconsistent with the requirement in the design guidelines that there be a “transition or step in height” between the buildings.

At its next meeting, the planning commission adopted the proposed findings in full and voted to deny the project. The plaintiffs, a group of housing advocates, appealed to the city council. The city council upheld the planning commission’s decision. The plaintiffs then filed a lawsuit seeking a writ of administrative mandamus on the ground that the city’s denial of the project violated the HAA.

The trial court denied the petition. The trial court held the city’s design guidelines were objective for the purposes of the HAA and that the city properly denied the application because the project was inconsistent with the guidelines. The court also denied the petition on the ground that the HAA conflicted with the California Constitution. In particular, the court held that to the extent the HAA conflicted with otherwise enforceable provisions of the city’s municipal code regarding housing development, the HAA is unenforceable as an intrusion into the city’s municipal affairs under the “home rule” doctrine of the California Constitution. (Cal. Const. Art. IX, § 5(a).) In addition, the trial court found that the HAA violates the prohibition on delegation of municipal affairs to private parties (Cal. Const. Art. XI, § 11(a)). The plaintiffs appealed.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

Application of the HAA to the City of San Mateo’s Design Standards

The appellate court first considered whether the city properly denied the application for the multifamily housing project under the HAA. The court explained that the key question in its application of the HAA is whether the city’s design guidelines qualify as “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, which would allow the city to disapprove the project under Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (j)(1), if they are not satisfied. The court concluded that the portions of the design guidelines addressing height are not objective for the purposes of the HAA.

The court explained that the question of whether the design standards are “objective” within the meaning of the HAA is a question of law to which the court owes the city no deference. The court determined that the language in the city’s design guidelines requires subjective judgment, and is therefore not objective. For example, the design guidelines provide that if building height varies by more than one story, the city may require a “transition or a step in height.” The fact that the guidelines allow a choice in how to address the height differential shows that the standard is not entirely objective. Moreover, the terms “transition” and “step in height” are open to interpretation. For instance, some might view the placement of large trees in between buildings, or the addition of trellises, as providing a transition or a step in height. Indeed, under the city planning staff’s original interpretation of the design guidelines, the question was treated as one of design choice which could be resolved in a variety of ways, depending on which form the designer viewed as most “compatible” with adjacent buildings. Furthermore, even assuming the guidelines require a setback in height, the guidelines do not state how large the setback must be, leaving that determination open to subjective determination. Based on these and similar considerations, the court held that the city’s design standards are subjective, rather than objective, so those standards cannot be a basis to deny a housing project under the HAA.

California Constitutional Challenges

The court next considered whether the HAA violates the California Constitution—specifically, whether subdivision (f)(4) of the HAA violates the “home rule” doctrine for charter cities, and the prohibition on delegation of municipal functions, and whether the HAA denies neighboring property owners of procedural due process rights. The court concluded that the HAA does not violated the California Constitution on any of these grounds.

The “Home Rule”

The California Constitution’s “home rule” provides that charter cities may govern themselves without legislative intrusion into municipal affairs. (See Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 5.) The courts apply a four-part test to determine whether the Legislature may exert control over a charter city’s action, despite its right to home rule: (1) whether the ordinance at issues regulates a “municipal affair”; (2) whether the case presents an actual conflict between local and state law; (3) whether the state law addresses a matter of statewide concern; and (4) whether the state law is “reasonably related” to resolving the concern at issue and is “narrowly tailored” to avoid unnecessary interference with local governance. Under this test, if the court determines that the subject of the state statute is of statewide concern and that the statute is reasonably related to its resolution and not unduly broad, then the conflicting charter measure is deemed not to be a “municipal affair” and the Legislature may pass legislation addressing it.

Applying these factors to the HAA and the city’s design review ordinance, the court held that the first two prongs were met because planning and zoning laws are a traditional municipal affair and, to the extent the city’s ordinances allow the city to reject applications for housing developments based on subjective standards, the ordinances conflict with the HAA. As to the third prong, the parties agreed that the provision of housing is a matter of statewide concern. The city argued, however, that subdivision (f)(4) of the HAA does not itself address a matter of statewide concern because local governments’ denial of housing projects is not the sole cause of the housing crisis. Other factors, such as high construction costs, a shortage of construction labor, and delays caused by the need to comply with CEQA, also contribute to the shortage. The court rejected this argument, explaining that the fact that local government’s denials of housing permits are not the only cause of the state’s housing crisis is immaterial. The question is whether the problem the Legislature is trying to solve is a statewide problem, not whether the solution is the only possible solution.

As to the fourth and final prong – whether the statute is reasonably related to the resolution of the identified statewide concern and is narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference with local government – the court found that the Legislature’s limiting the ability of local governments to deny new development based on subjective criteria is reasonably related to providing additional housing. Furthermore, the statute is narrowly tailored in that it leaves local governments free to establish and enforce policies and development standards, as long as those standards are objective, and do not otherwise interfere with the jurisdiction’s ability to meet its share of regional housing needs. Additionally, the HAA does not bar local governments from imposing conditions on projects to meet subjective standards; the HAA only prohibits local governments from reducing a project’s density or denying the project altogether based on subjective standards. The HAA also allows local governments to deny a proposed housing project if the project would have an unavoidable adverse impact on health and safety. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(1)(A) and (B).) Accordingly, the statute is not only reasonably related to a statewide concern, but also narrowly tailored to avoid undue interference with local control over zoning and design decisions. Therefore, section (f)(4) of the HAA does not violate California Constitution’s “home rule.”

Delegation of Municipal Functions

The court next considered whether subdivision (f)(4) of the HAA violates the California Constitution’s prohibition on “delegate[ing] a private person or body power to … perform municipal functions.” (Cal. Const. Art. XI, § 11, subd. (a).) The court held that it does not. Although subdivision (f)(4) of the HAA lowers the burden to show a project is consistent with objective standards, the statute does not cede municipal authority to private persons. For example, local agencies maintain the authority and discretion to determine whether the record contains substantial evidence that a reasonable person would find the project is consistent with applicable objective standards, and to impose conditions of approval on the project, provided that they do not reduce the project’s density where applicable objectives are met.

The city argued that subdivision (f)(4) of the HAA would allow anyone, even the project proponent, to place in the record evidence that a project is consistent with objective standards and thereby force a local agency to approve the project. The court rejected this argument, however, because the “substantial evidence” standard provides a sufficient degree of scrutiny such that not just any self-serving evidence will support the conclusion that a project is consistent with applicable objective standards. Furthermore, subdivision (f)(4) requires that the evidence to allow a reasonable person to consider the project in conformity with the objective standards. Therefore, the statute does not require a local agency to approve a project based on the unsupported opinion of a single person, or upon evidence that a reasonable person would not find credible.

Due Process

Lastly, the city argued that subdivision (f)(4) of the HAA violates the rights of neighboring landowners by depriving them of the opportunity to be heard before a housing project is approved. More specifically, the city argued, subdivision (f)(4) renders local government review a useless exercise because if anyone submits evidence that the project is consistent with applicable objective standards, the project is deemed consistent and must be approved.

The court rejected this argument. Even assuming that due process protections apply to a municipality’s determination that a project is consistent with objective standards under subdivision (f)(4), there is no due process violation. The substantial evidence standard requires evidence that is of “ponderable legal significance” and is reasonable, credible, and of solid value. Nothing in the HAA prevents neighbors from presenting evidence to the agency that the substantial evidence standard is not met. Furthermore, neighbors can also present evidence that the agency should impose conditions on the project to minimize adverse effects or even deny the project if it would have an unavoidable “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j).) Therefore, although subdivision (f)(4) may affect which arguments carry the day, it does not deprive opposing neighbors with a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Implications

The Court of Appeal in this case strictly interpreted what is meant my “objective” in the meaning of the HAA. The case makes clear that if there is room for personal judgment in deciding whether a proposed project complies with a given design standard, the standard is “subjective” and cannot be a basis to deny the housing project. The case serves as a warning to local agencies to heed the HAA’s limits on the ability to deny a proposed housing project. In the words of the court: “As the Legislature has steadily strengthened the statute’s requirements, it has made increasingly clear that those mandates are to be taken seriously. …The HAA is today strong medicine precisely because the Legislature has diagnosed a sick patient.”

Fourth District Court of Appeal upholds determination that one group of utilities undergrounding projects is exempt from CEQA because of petitioner’s failure to exhaust, but remands for further consideration of GHG impacts from second group of utilities undergrounding projects

General Posted by   

In a procedurally complicated holding, in McCann v. City of San Diego (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 51,the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s ruling on the City of San Diego’s determination that one set of utilities undergrounding districts is exempt from CEQA, but remanded for further analysis of another set of utilities undergrounding districts to determine whether the project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP).

Background

The City of San Diego adopted a Utilities Undergrounding Program Master Plan in 2017, which sets out a process by which the City is converting overhead utility wires to an underground system. Undergrounding includes digging tunnels or trenches, installing underground conduit, filling in the soil, and pulling cable through the conduit. In addition, the City installs new above-ground transformers, three-foot cube-shaped cable boxes, and pedestals. The Master Plan and the City’s Municipal Code divide the larger effort to convert the entire above-ground utility system into smaller “districts,” each of which the City considers and approves separately.

Margaret McCann, a property owner, challenged the City’s approval of two sets of districts. The first set, City staff determined, was exempt from CEQA pursuant to Guidelines section 15302, subdivision (d). For the second set, the City adopted a mitigated negative declaration (MND).

The exempt districts

City staff determined that the first set of districts is exempt from CEQA. The City posted a Notice of Right to Appeal Environmental Determination in its City Development Services Department Office and on its website, and emailed the notice to City Councilmembers and local community planning groups. The notice stated that the exemption determination was appealable to the City Council within ten days. No one appealed. The City Council subsequently mailed notice of a public hearing regarding the districts to affected property owners, including McCann. McCann emailed the City and indicated that she had not seen the Notice of Right to Appeal, and that she believed the environmental review was inadequate. Her attorney also spoke at the Council hearing. The City Council subsequently approved the projects and the City filed a Notice of Exemption.

The MND districts

Separately, the City published a draft MND for another set of undergrounding districts, because some of them included sites with cultural significance. The MND also considered potential aesthetic and GHG effects from the projects. McCann and her attorney submitted written comments disputing the adequacy of the MND, and McCann’s attorney spoke at the public hearing. The City Council adopted the MND and approved the undergrounding districts.

Trial court decision

McCann filed a petition challenging both the exempt districts and the MND districts. The trial court denied the petition in its entirety. With respect to the exempt projects, the trial court found that McCann failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and in the alternative, denied her claims outright. Regarding the MND projects, the trial court found that McCann failed to demonstrate that substantial evidence supported a fair argument that the projects may have a significant effect on the environment.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court, with one exception. First, with respect to the exempt projects, the court explained that CEQA does not prescribe a specific appeal process following a determination that a project is exempt. But, the court said, CEQA does require that if a nonelected official or decisionmaking body determines that a project is exempt, the agency must allow for an appeal of that determination to the decisionmaking body. Here, the City provided an administrative appeal process, but McCann did not file a timely appeal pursuant to the City’s procedures. McCann argued that City staff’s exemption determination did not comply with due process principles, but the court disagreed because the determination was not a land use decision and did not deprive McCann of any significant property interest. As a result, the court concluded, McCann failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, barring her claims with respect to the exempt projects.

Second, with respect to the MND projects, the Court of Appeal rejected all but one of McCann’s arguments. McCann argued that the City improperly segmented the projects; the court disagreed because each utility underground district is independently functional and does not rely on other districts to operate, and no set of districts is the “first step” toward any other projects. McCann argued that the project description was inadequate because it did not identify the precise locations of above-ground transformer boxes; the court disagreed because regardless of the precise location of each transformer, the environmental impacts of the project are the same. McCann argued that the MND projects will have significant aesthetic effects on the environment; the court disagreed because McCann failed to meet her burden to identify substantial evidence in the record that the project might have significant impacts. Most of McCann’s arguments, the court said, revolved around her neighborhood, which falls under the exempt projects, not the MND projects. McCann also cited to testimony of a person who commented on the project, but the court concluded that stray comments or expressions of concern related to aesthetic impacts are not enough to constitute substantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal remanded to the trial court on one narrow issue–the City’s determination that GHG impacts are not significant. Interestingly, the court explained that it was not holding that McCann proved that substantial evidence supported a fair argument that the project might have significant GHG impacts, which is usually the standard of review applied by the courts when considering an MND. Instead, the court said that because the City relied on an inapplicable checklist to conclude that the project was consistent with the City’s CAP, the City’s conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence.

To determine whether the project is consistent with the CAP, the City looked to its “Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist.” The checklist directs staff to first consider whether a project is consistent with the City’s land use and zoning regulations. If yes, staff must then move to step two. But the checklist explains that step two does not apply to projects that, like this one, do not require a certificate of occupancy. Because step two does not apply, the City concluded that the project was consistent with the CAP. The court found, though, that the City could not rely on a checklist which expressly states that it does not apply to projects like this one to make a consistency determination. Thus, the court concluded, the City never considered whether the MND projects are consistent with the CAP. The court clarified that the use of a checklist to determine consistency might still be appropriate; the City could amend the checklist to include a step for assessing infrastructure projects, or it could create a separate checklist entirely. Without such a checklist though, the City was required to consider whether the projects comply with each individual action identified in the CAP if it wished to rely on streamlined review of GHG impacts.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment on this limited issue, with directions to the trial court to enter a new judgment granting the petition in part, and to issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the City to set aside its adoption of the MND and approval of the project.

COURT HOLDS DENSITY BONUS LAW PROHIBITS CITIES AND COUNTIES FROM REQUIRING PROOF THAT PROJECTS WILL BE “ECONOMICALLY” INFEASIBLE WITHOUT REQUESTED CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS

General Posted by   

The density bonus law (Gov. Code, § 65915) requires cities and counties to allow increased building density, and development incentives and waivers of permit requirements, in exchange for the applicant’s agreement to dedicate a specified number of dwelling units to low or very-low income households. In Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 549, the Second District Court of Appeal held that the City of Los Angeles’ municipal code is preempted by the state density bonus law to the extent that the city’s code requires an applicant to prove that the concessions it requests under the density bonus law are needed to make the affordable-housing component of the project financially feasible.

The case involves a mixed-use development in the City of Los Angeles, with retail uses on the ground floor and residential units above. Absent concessions and waivers, the city’s zoning code would limit the site’s development to three stories, a height of 45 feet, and a maximum of 40 units. Under the density bonus law, however, the applicant proposed to develop a seven-story building, with 54 units, including five very-low income units and five moderate income units.

Prior to the city planning commission’s first hearing on the project, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 2501 (AB 2501), which amended the density bonus law to prohibit local governments from conditioning their review or approval of an application under the density bonus law “on the preparation of an additional report or study that is not otherwise required by law.” (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (a)(2).) AB 2501 clarified, however, that local agencies are not prohibited from “requiring an applicant to provide reasonable documentation to establish eligibility for a requested density bonus, incentives, or concessions.” (Ibid.) It also clarified that the term “study” does not include “reasonable documentation to establish eligibility for the concession or incentive or to demonstrate that the incentive or concession meets the definitions” set forth in the density bonus law. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (k).)

Based on AB 2501, the city’s planning department advised that financial pro formas and third-party reviews can no longer be required. Although the applicant had provided financial information regarding the project, in response to city staff’s interpretation of AB 2501, the applicant stated that he would not be providing a pro forma for the project.

Following a hearing, the city planning commission approved the project, including the requested density bonus. The planning commission also approved two “off menu” incentives (increased floor area and maximum height) and two waivers (transitional height and rear yard set back requirements).

The plaintiffs, residents of a nearby single-family home, filed a petition for writ of mandate alleging that the city misinterpreted the density bonus law. In particular, the plaintiffs argued that the city erred in granting the off-menu incentives because the applicant had not submitted financial information showing that the incentives were needed to make the project economically feasible—information that, the plaintiffs observed, was required under the city’s municipal code. The trial court denied the petition and the court of appeal affirmed.

The appellate court explained that under AB 2501’s amendments to the density bonus law, a local government cannot condition its approval of incentives on the preparation of a report that is not otherwise required by law. The city’s municipal code, however, provided that a request for an off-menu incentive must include a pro forma or other documentation showing that the incentive is needed to make the affordable-housing component of the project economically feasible. The court held that the city may not require information that an incentive is necessary to make the project economically feasible because that information is not needed to show that the project is eligible for the incentive. Rather, the “economically feasible” language in the city’s municipal code was based on a prior version of the statute, which required applicants to show that an incentive was necessary to render the affordable units economically feasible. That requirement, however, had been removed from the statute in 2008. Because the city code conflicted with state density bonus law, the court held that the city code is preempted to the extent that it requires an applicant to demonstrate that a requested incentive is needed to make the project economically feasible.

The case provides helpful guidance regarding the documentation that local agencies may require in processing a request for incentives and waivers under the density bonus law. The case clarifies that an agency may not require an applicant to prove that the requested incentives and waivers are necessary to make the affordable-housing component of a project economically feasible. The court’s reasoning in the case is consistent with the requirement that the density bonus law be “interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units.” (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (r).)

THIRD DISTRICT FINDS EIR FOR OLYMPIC VALLEY RESORT PROJECT FAILED TO ADEQUATELY CONSIDER IMPACTS TO LAKE TAHOE’S UNIQUE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

General Posted by   

In Sierra Watch v. County of Placer (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 86, the Third District Court of Appeal found that the EIR for a resort development project in Olympic Valley violated CEQA because it contained an inadequate description of the environmental setting and failed to adequately consider the project’s potential air quality, water quality, and noise impacts on Lake Tahoe and the surrounding Basin.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1983, Placer County adopted the Squaw Valley General Plan and Land Use Ordinance to guide development and growth within the Olympic Valley (formerly Squaw Valley) area. The 4,700-acre area lies a few miles northwest of Lake Tahoe in the Sierra Nevada mountains.

In 2011, Real Party in Interest Squaw Valley Real Estate LLC proposed the first project under the general plan and ordinance—the Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan—which included two components to be built over a 25-year timeframe: (1) an 85-acre parcel that included 850 lodging units, approximately 300,000 square feet of commercial space, and 3,000 parking spaces (“the Village”); and (2) an 8.8-acre parcel that included housing for up to 300 employees (“the East Parcel”).

The County approved the project and certified its associated EIR in 2016. Following the County’s approval, Sierra Watch filed a petition for writ of mandate, alleging the County violated CEQA in numerous ways. The trial court rejected Sierra Watch’s claims. Sierra Watch appealed.

COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION

In the published portion of the opinion, the Third District considered whether the EIR sufficiently described the project’s environmental setting and adequately considered water quality, air quality, and noise impacts.

EIR’s Description of the Environmental Setting

The court first considered whether the EIR’s discussion of the environmental setting adequately addressed Lake Tahoe and the Lake Tahoe Basin, particularly with respect to the settings for water and air quality.

Water Quality Setting

As to water quality, the Court of Appeal agreed with Sierra Watch’s assertion that the EIR’s hydrology and water quality analysis failed to adequately describe the regional setting specific to Lake Tahoe. Though the Draft EIR explained that the project would be “located within the low elevation portion of the approximately eight square mile Squaw Creek watershed, a tributary to the middle reach of the Truckee River (downstream of Lake Tahoe),” it concluded that VMT generated by the project would not exceed TRPA’s cumulative VMT threshold, and thus, would not affect the Lake’s water quality. The court rejected this rationale by noting that the EIR’s description failed to discuss the importance of the Lake’s current condition or the relationship between VMT and the Lake’s water clarity and quality, thereby depriving the public of an ability to evaluate and assess impacts on the Lake.

Air Quality Setting

As to air quality, the court found that the EIR’s description of the air quality setting and baseline was more substantial, and thus, adequate. The EIR properly explained the applicable air quality standards and presented data on the current concentrations and sources of criteria air pollutants in the area.

EIR’s Analysis of Impacts

Air Quality Impacts

The court agreed with Sierra Watch’s assertion that the EIR failed to meaningfully assess the project’s traffic impacts on Lake Tahoe’s air quality. The EIR concluded the project would not exceed TRPA’s cumulative VMT threshold but acknowledged it would likely exceed TRPA’s project-level VMT threshold for basin traffic. Nevertheless, the EIR ultimately concluded that TRPA’s VMT significance thresholds did not apply because the project was not located in the Tahoe Basin. The court found this rationale “provided mixed messages.” Rather than summarizing and declaring TRPA’s VMT thresholds as inapplicable, the court held that the EIR should have determined whether the Project’s impacts on Lake Tahoe and the Basin were potentially significant.

The court also agreed that the EIR underestimated the Project’s expected cumulative VMT in the Basin by failing to consider expected VMT from other anticipated projects. Even though the County addressed this issue in post-FEIR responses to comments, the court held that the public was denied an opportunity to “test, assess, and evaluate the newly revealed information and make an informed judgment as to the validity of the conclusions to be drawn therefrom.”

Construction Noise Impacts

The court rejected Sierra Watch’s initial assertion that the EIR failed to adequately disclose the duration of construction noise at any specific location, particularly at the Village parcel. The EIR properly explained that that portion of the Project would be constructed over 25 years based on market conditions, and thus, it would be too speculative to identify specific noise levels for every single receptor.

The court agreed, however, with Sierra Watch’s assertion that the EIR failed to analyze the project’s full geographic range of noises by ignoring activities occurring farther than 50 feet from sensitive receptors. The court reasoned that a “lead agency cannot ignore a project’s expected impacts merely because they occur…’outside an arbitrary radius.’” The EIR only considered impacts to sensitive receptors within 50 feet of construction—yet, according to the court, “ignore[d] potential impacts to a receptor sitting an inch more distant[,] even though the noise levels at these two distances would presumably be the same.” Though the County explained this analysis was standard practice, the court contended that an agency “cannot employ a methodological approach in a manner that entirely forecloses consideration of evidence showing impacts to the neighboring region [and] beyond a project’s boundaries.”

Finally, the court agreed that mitigation requiring “operations and techniques … be replaced with quieter procedures where feasible and consistent with building codes and other applicable laws and regulations” was too vague because “in effect, [it] only tells construction contractors to be quieter than normal when they can.” The court concluded that the measure improperly deferred which construction procedures can later be modified to be quiet but did not explain how these determinations are to be made.

– Bridget McDonald

*RMM Attorneys Whit Manley, Andee Leisy, Chip Wilkins, and Nathan George represented Real Party in Interest Squaw Valley Real Estate LLC in this litigation. 

Second District Court of Appeal Holds That Reduced Parking at National Monument is not a Direct Environmental Impact and Upholds Alternatives Analysis with Only a “No Project” Alternative.

General Posted by   

In Save Our Access—San Gabriel Mountains v. Watershed Conservation Authority (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 8, the Second District Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff failed to show that reduced parking within the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument would cause any adverse physical changes in the environment, that the lead agency did not abuse its discretion in setting the baseline for parking based on aerial photography that was not included in the record, and that, based on the project’s purpose, analyzing only a “no project” alternative was a reasonable range of alternatives.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The San Gabriel Mountains National Monument was designated in 2014. The project site includes 198 acres along two and a half miles of the East fork of the San Gabriel River, including public roads, recreational facilities, and the riverbed itself. The site is significantly degraded due to heavy public use and a lack of adequate facilities. The project was proposed to improve and better manage recreation facilities along with ecological restoration and reducing environmental impacts associated with recreational use at the site.

The EIR discussed existing issues associated with parking, including the small number of designated parking spaces and the widespread practice of parking in undesignated areas, which created public safety and traffic issues throughout the site. In total, the EIR estimated that there was a total of 417 parking spaces throughout the site, of which only 48 were designated parking spaces. The estimates were based on aerial photography that was included in the EIR. The EIR also included survey data that found that average weekend use at the site from Memorial Day to Labor Day was 273 vehicles per weekend day. To address the parking and related issues, the project proposed to create a total of 270 designated car spaces and three bus spaces, and to reduce undesignated parking with a combination of signage and physical barriers.

The EIR analyzed the project’s potential impacts to recreation and concluded, based on survey data, that impacts would be less than significant because many users of the site would choose to recreate in other nearby areas if parking or other facilities were unavailable, and, given the number and variety of recreation opportunities in proximity to the site, the impacts of those users going elsewhere would be disbursed and would not be cumulatively considerable. The EIR concluded that all impacts associated with the project would be less than significant with mitigation. The alternatives analysis compared the proposed project to a “no project” alternative but did not analyze any other alternatives.

The plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the Watershed Conservation Authority’s certification of the EIR and approval of the project. The trial court granted the petition, in part, based on the court’s conclusion that (1) the parking baseline lacked substantial evidence support because the aerial photography the baseline relied on was not in the record; (2) the agency failed to disclose the exact number of parking spaces available in each area of the site; (3) the parking survey was unsupported by substantial evidence because of the time of day when the surveys took place; and (4) without an accurate parking baseline, the EIR failed as an informational documents because the proposed parking reduction could be significant and require mitigation.

THE COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION

Reversing the trail court’s decision, the Court of Appeal determined that the EIR adequately discussed the project’s proposed reduction in total parking spaces and that the alleged discrepancy in total parking spaces (plaintiff alleged that there were 473 available spaces, rather than 417) was immaterial because plaintiff failed to identify any adverse physical impacts on the environment resulting from the reduced parking. The court noted that, in fact, the purpose of reducing and formalizing parking at the site was to protect and restore the environment.

The court went on to analyze two CEQA cases addressing parking issues. First, the court considered San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, which held that the inconvenience associated with “hunting” for scarce parking was not an environmental impact, but secondary effects, like traffic and air quality are. Accordingly, the court determined that an EIR need only address the adverse secondary effects of limited parking, not the social impact itself. The court also reviewed Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1013, which rejected the school district’s argument that a parking shortage is “never” a direct physical environmental impact. The court reasoned that each case must be decided on its facts, and that while, in some cases parking deficits may have direct physical impacts on the environment, plaintiff had not shown that the project’s parking reduction would result in direct or secondary physical impacts on the environment.

Turning to the EIR’s analysis of recreation impacts, the court found that the EIR’s analysis of nearby recreational facilities and likely impacts was adequate and that the EIR’s assumptions, based on survey data, were reasonable. The court rejected plaintiff’s speculation that, instead of leaving to recreate elsewhere, visitors to the project site would “circle and idle” until a parking space became available. Thus, the EIR’s conclusion that recreation impacts would be less than significant was supported by substantial evidence.

Regarding alternatives, the court focused on the EIR’s discussion of alternatives that were considered, but not analyzed in the EIR. The EIR explained that, through a series of workshops, three project design concepts were proposed and assessed for their ability to achieve the purposes of the project, but only one (the project), was selected for study in the EIR, along with the required “no project” alternative. The agency also considered an alternative proposed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife but decided not to analyze it in the EIR either. The plaintiff argued that, as a matter of law, analyzing only one alternative was inadequate. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument, finding that, although CEQA and the Guidelines use the term “alternatives” (i.e., the plural form), the law is clear that the range of alternatives is subject to a rule of reason, and that each case must be evaluated on its facts. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that several feasible alternatives were proposed to the agency by a nearby business owner who was concerned that reduced parking at the site would impact his business. The court concluded that plaintiff had failed to show how the proposed alternatives would attain most of the basic project objectives or feasibly avoid or lessen one or more of the project’s significant impacts. The court found, on the facts of this case, that the inclusion of only a “no project” alternative was reasonable, given the purpose of the project and that the project, with mitigation, would not result in any significant impacts.

Lastly, plaintiff argued that the project was inconsistent with the Angeles National Forest Land Management Plan (LMP) and the designation creating the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument. Plaintiff’s argument centered around the reduction in parking and claimed that the corresponding reduction in access to the National Monument created inconsistencies. The court rejected this argument, finding that it elevated public access above all the other objectives and policies in the declaration. The court reasoned that the agency was required, under the proclamation and LMP, to balance public access with other concerns, including protection of the environment, and that the project did so.

– Nathan O. George

Fifth District Court of Appeal Excuses Petitioner’s Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies, Holds that Unlined Landfills are Not “Facilities” for Purposes of the Class 1 Categorical Exemption

General Posted by   

In the published portions of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power v. County of Inyo (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 1018, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the issue exhaustion requirement in Public Resources Code section 21177, subdivision (a) did not apply where the County of Inyo did not provide adequate public notice prior to adopting a Notice of Exemption (NOE) and that the County abused its discretion in finding that condemning three landfill sites was categorically exempt from CEQA under the “existing facilities” exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (the “Class 1” categorical exemption).

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Beginning in the 1950s, the County began leasing land within the County owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) for waste management purposes. At issue in this case were three sites leased by the County for use as unlined landfills. The County’s operation of the landfills is subject to permitting by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Beginning in 2012, the County sought to amend the permits for two of the three landfill sites to increase the permissible daily usage, overall capacity, and to accelerate the closure dates, effectively shortening the useful life of the landfills.

After negotiating with LADWP to extend the lease agreement for one of the sites, the County determined that acquiring all three landfill sites through condemnation was necessary. In a letter to the Board of Supervisors, LADWP objected to the County’s decision, in part, arguing that that the County was required to comply with CEQA before taking any action on the proposed condemnation. At the Board hearing on the condemnation proposal, County staff suggested that the Board’s actions would be exempt from CEQA review for several reasons, including the “existing facilities” categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15301. The Board approved the condemnation proceedings, but its written decision made no mention of CEQA.

LADWP filed suit. The Kern County Superior Court ruled that the County violated CEQA and issued a writ of mandate directing the County to rescind its resolutions relating to the condemnation proceedings, pending compliance with CEQA. The County appealed.

THE COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION

Before turning to the merits of LADWP’s CEQA claims, the Court of Appeal addressed the “threshold procedural issue” of whether LADWP’s CEQA claims were barred because it failed to exhaust its administrative remedies with respect to the issues that it raised in court. After discussing the statute and relevant case law, the court acknowledged that because CEQA did not require a comment period prior to determining that a project is exempt from CEQA, the relevant question was whether the agency provided adequate notice to the public prior to considering an exemption. Specifically, the court explained, an agency’s notice must inform the public that the agency will consider a CEQA exemption; otherwise, the issue exhaustion requirement in Public Resources Code section 21177, subdivision (a), does not apply. Here, the court found that the first mention of CEQA and the Board’s consideration of an exemption was made by staff during the hearing, and the hearing notice was silent on CEQA. The court concluded that the public was not provided with adequate notice regarding the exemption, and therefore, LADWP was not required to exhaust on its CEQA challenges to the County’s exemption determination.

Turning to the exemptions relied on by the County, the court found that because the issues before it involved the scope of the “existing facilities” categorical exemption and statutory construction, review of the County’s actions was de novo. After reviewing the language of CEQA Guidelines section 15301, the court concluded that the term “facilities” is ambiguous, agreeing with the Second District Court of Appeal in Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165 (Azusa). Further agreeing with Azusa, the court reasoned that, because an unlined landfill was “excavated” rather than “built,” an unlined landfill was more akin to an alteration in the condition of land rather than a facility. The court reasoned that because section 15301 was revised following the Azusa decision but did not expressly mention landfills, the court concluded that the Secretary of Resources who issued the revised Guideline must have agreed with Azusa that unlined landfills are not a class of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment. Thus, the court concluded that the County abused its discretion in finding the condemnation proceedings categorically exempt under the Class 1 categorical exemptions.

– Nathan O. George

First District Court of Appeal Holds That Governor Newsom’s Certification of Oakland Howard Terminal Project Under AB 734 Was Timely

General Posted by   

In Pacific Merchant Shipping Association v. Newsom (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 711, the First District Court of Appeal held that there was no deadline for the Governor to certify the Howard Terminal Project as qualifying for expedited judicial review under Assembly Bill (AB) 734, and specifically, that the Howard Terminal Project was not subject to the certification deadline in the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 (AB 900).

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Howard Terminal Project is a proposed development located at Oakland’s Howard Terminal. It includes a new baseball stadium for the Oakland A’s, as well as residential, retail, commercial, and other uses.

In 2018, the Legislature passed AB 734, which provided that, if the Governor certified that the Howard Terminal project met specific environmental standards, then litigation challenging the project’s environmental review would be subject to expedited judicial review. AB 734 was a stand-alone bill applicable solely to the Howard Terminal project. In many respects, AB 734 was modeled after separate legislation, generally referred to as AB 900, providing for expedited judicial review of “Environmental Leadership Development Projects” (ELDP projects).

First enacted in 2011, the Legislature has amended AB 900 several times, in part to extend various deadlines embedded in the statute. In September 2018, when the Legislature enacted AB 734, AB 900 provided that the Governor had to certify a project by January 1, 2020, and the lead agency had to approve the project by January 1, 2021, when AB 900 would sunset. AB 900 also authorized the Governor to adopt guidelines to implement the statute. The Governor’s AB 900 guidelines reflected AB 900’s deadlines.

AB 734 provided that the Governor’s AB 900 guidelines apply to the “implementation” of AB 734 “to the extent the guidelines are applicable and do not conflict with specific requirements” of AB 734. Unlike AB 900, AB 734 did not specify any deadlines in the text of the statute.

Shortly after the Legislature adopted AB 734, Governor Newsom amended his AB 900 guidelines to reference AB 734 and the Howard Terminal project, along with a different project – the Los Angeles Clippers’ proposed basketball arena in Inglewood – subject to its own, stand-alone, fast-track legislation (AB 987) that contained a similar reference to the Governor’s AB 900 guidelines.

In March 2019, the A’s submitted an application to the Governor for certification under AB 734. As a precursor to Governor certification, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) had to find that the Howard Terminal project would meet strict greenhouse gas emission reduction targets mandated by AB 734. In August 2020 – 16 months after the A’s submitted their application, and eight months after AB 900’s January 1, 2020, certification deadline – CARB made this finding. Governor Newsom certified the Howard Terminal project in February 2021.

A coalition of businesses operating at the Port of Oakland, led by the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA), sued the Governor, challenging his authority to certify the project. PMSA alleged that the Governor’s authority to certify the project under AB 734 had expired as of January 1, 2020—the deadline for certification in AB 900. Specifically, PMSA argued that, by incorporating the AB 900 guidelines into AB 734 “to the extent the guidelines are applicable and not in conflict with the specific requirements” of AB 734, the legislature had incorporated AB 900’s deadline for certification. The trial court rejected PMSA’s arguments. PMSA appealed.

THE COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION

After discussing the general rules of statutory interpretation, the Court of Appeal concluded that the text of AB 734 was ambiguous as to whether the January 1, 2020, deadline for certification of ELDP projects under AB 900 also applied to the Howard Terminal project under AB 734.

Turning to the legislative history for insight, the court noted that the author of AB 734 proposed a standalone bill for the Howard Terminal project, in part, because the project could not meet AB 900’s deadlines. Thus, one option the legislature considered was whether to simply extend AB 900’s deadlines and have the project proceed under AB 900. The court reasoned that the legislature was aware of this option but chose to adopt AB 734—with no deadlines—instead. Based on its review of the legislative history as a whole, the court concluded that the legislature had not intended to incorporate AB 900’s certification deadline into AB 734.

The court also determined that its construction of AB 734 was supported by the legislative purpose of the statute. As the court noted, the purposes served by enactment of AB 734 are made clear in the legislation: to assist the City of Oakland in retaining the Oakland A’s by streamlining environmental review for a “state-of-the-art baseball park” project; to generate thousands of high-wage, highly skilled jobs during construction and operation of the project; to support the City’s and region’s goals for sustainable, transit-oriented housing, including affordable housing; to provide an opportunity for investment “in new and improved transit and transportation infrastructure”; and to “implement sustainability measures designed to improve air quality and mitigate the emissions of greenhouse gases resulting from the project.” For all these reasons, the special legislation was deemed necessary so that the Howard Terminal Project could be developed in an “expeditious manner.” In light of the significant environmental, economic, and cultural benefits which prompted the adoption of AB 734, the court concluded that PMSA’s reading of the statute would undermine rather than promote the general purposes of the statute and the objectives to be achieved.

Lastly, the court concluded that a practical reading of AB 734, including its lack of deadlines, supported the respondents’ argument that the legislature did not intend to incorporate AB 900’s certification deadline into AB 734. Among other practical reasons for rejecting PMSA’s reading of the statute, the court noted that CARB’s step in the process alone exceeded PMSA’s alleged one-year deadline for certification.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court and affirmed the judgment.

RMM attorneys Whit Manley and Chris Stiles represented Real Party in Interest Oakland Athletics Investment Group LLC in the litigation.

– Nathan O. George

First District Court of Appeal Holds That a Necessary and Indispensable Party is Not Bound to a Tolling Agreement That It Did Not Sign

General Posted by   

In Save Lafayette Trees v. East Bay Regional Park District (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 21, the First District Court of Appeal held that PG&E, a necessary and indispensable party in the case, was not bound to an agreement to toll the CEQA statute of limitations executed by only the petitioners and the respondent public agency.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 21, 2017, the East Bay Regional Park District’s (District) Board of Directors issued a resolution accepting funding from PG&E as compensation for the removal of 245 trees on District property near PG&E’s natural gas transmission pipelines. PG&E issued this funding as a part of its “Community Pipeline Safety Initiative.” The District and PG&E later signed an MOU for the implementation PG&E’s initiative and ongoing maintenance and monitoring of the area near the natural gas pipeline. On June 27, 2017, the District filed a Notice of Exemption after finding the MOU and related activity categorically from CEQA.

On July 31, 2017, Save Lafayette Trees, Michael Dawson and David Kosters (Appellants), and the District entered into a tolling agreement to toll all applicable statutes of limitations for 60 days. PG&E did not consent to this agreement. On September 29, within the 60-day tolling period, Appellants filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the District’s approval of the MOU under CEQA, as well as for violations of local ordinances and state constitutional due process rights. The action named PG&E as a real party in interest. PG&E demurred to the CEQA cause of action as time-bared by both the 35-day and 180-day statute of limitations periods under Public Resources Code section 21167. The trial court sustained the demurrer.

THE COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION

Upholding the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeal determined that PG&E was not bound to the tolling agreement between Appellants and the District. The court concluded that PG&E was both a necessary and indispensable party in the litigation, and therefore, was entitled to assert or waive the statute of limitations defense. The court noted that CEQA does not statutorily authorize tolling agreements, which means that they are not a statutory right. Rather, tolling agreements are private agreements between parties that have no effect on parties not in privity. Citing Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 195 (“Salmon Protection”), the court explained that CEQA does not prohibit tolling agreements to extend the limitations period, but to be effective they must include the recipient of an approval (the project proponent), the public agency, and the would-be petitioner. Because PG&E was a necessary and indispensable party, it was not bound to the tolling agreement to which it was not a signatory.

The court further reasoned that binding an indispensable party like PG&E to a tolling agreement to which it did not consent would defeat the purpose of the limitations period in Public Resources Code section 21167 to “protect project proponents from extended delay, uncertainty and potential disruption of a project caused by a belated challenge to the validity of the project’s authorization.”

The court also rejected Appellants’ argument that the 180-day limitations period had not run because they did not have constructive notice of the project. Appellants claimed there was no constructive notice because the removal of the trees was not included in the Board’s agenda for the project nor the accompanying description of the Board’s resolution. Public Resources Code section 21167 provides that the 180-day period begins after the agency’s decision or commencement of a project. The court noted that the Supreme Court has held that a public agency’s formal decision to carry out or approve a project is deemed constructive notice for potential CEQA claims. In this case, the court determined that the MOU for funding the tree replacement was consistent with the Board’s resolution and the project as outlined in the staff report, and did not, as Appellants asserted, constitute a “substantial difference” that would not provide constructive notice. The court explained that any flaws in the project approval process do not delay the applicable limitations period where, as here, the public agency gave notice of the very approval Appellants challenged.

The court concluded that the 180-day limitations period thus began to run on March 21, 2017, when the Board made its final decision and expired on September 18, 2017, eleven days before Appellants commenced their action. Therefore, the court held that the CEQA cause of action was properly dismissed as untimely.

– Veronika S. Morrison

THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL DISMISSES PETITIONERS’ CHALLENGE TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION BECAUSE THE CLAIMS DID NOT ESTABLISH A FAIR ARGUMENT OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

General Posted by   

In Newtown Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 771, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision to uphold El Dorado County’s adoption of a mitigated negative declaration (MND) for a bridge replacement project. In the published portions of the opinion, the court held that Petitioners failed to establish a “fair argument” that the project would have significant environmental impacts. Instead, Petitioners raised concerns regarding existing wildfire hazards that could impact residents near the project, but did not establish that the project may significantly impact the environment by creating or exacerbating wildfire hazards.

Factual and Procedural Background

The County, in preparing the MND, determined that the bridge replacement project could interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans and—as a result—expose people or structures to risk of loss or injury. However, the County also determined that these impacts would not be significant since a temporary evacuation route would be constructed to mitigate the risk. Such a route would only be used for emergency evacuation and, regardless of whether it was in place, any evacuation or emergency orders would be executed as the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services saw fit. Additionally, the County consulted with this office as well as the El Dorado County Fire Protection District in preparing the MND and both entities were comfortable with the document’s conclusions and assessments.

The County initially refrained from discussing the temporary evacuation route in detail in its mitigated negative declaration since it was concerned this would “lead people to believe that they should follow a certain evacuation route.” But, as a result of comments raised by one of the petitioners’ counsel and others regarding the possibility of a temporary evacuation route, the County’s responses to comments elucidated its plans and evacuation procedures in greater detail. It outlined several evacuation options given numerous emergency conditions depending on whether the temporary evacuation route was constructed.

After the County adopted the MND, Petitioners filed a writ a mandate, claiming the County failed to 1) properly consider the no-project alternative and 2) “adequately address the impact of closing the bridge without committing to construction of an evacuation route.” Petitioners claimed there was sufficient evidence in the record—including letters, correspondences, and hearing comments—supporting a fair argument that the bridge replacement project would significantly impact public safety. For example, a resident who lived on Newtown Road discussed past fire damage near her home; another resident complained that the County had not determined with finality whether a temporary route would be constructed; and another expressed concern about the effects of wind in the area on fire management; an aerial firefighter argued that recent history of wildfires demonstrated the danger in the County’s temporary evacuation route plans; Ms. Nagel, one of the petitioners, discussed her extensive firefighting experience; and Ms. Nagel’s attorney argued that the County’s MND violated CEQA by deferring important emergency management analysis.

The trial court, however, found that none of the petitioners’ arguments constituted substantial evidence, especially in light of explanatory testimony and responses to comments by the County and its experts, as well as the detailed evacuation options outlined in the MND. Instead, Petitioners’ letters and comments amounted to mere complaints and fears, backed up by speculation and unsubstantiated, non-expert opinion.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

On appeal, Petitioners argued that the trial court erred in upholding the MND since “substantial evidence supports a fair argument of potentially significant impacts on resident safety and emergency evacuation.” The court noted that evidence supporting a fair argument can be substantial even though other equally compelling evidence may exist to the contrary. Still, the court concluded that Petitioners’ “framing of the fair argument test [was] erroneous. The question is not whether substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the proposed project will have significant impacts on resident safety and emergency evacuation. . . . [T]he question is whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” Yet Petitioners failed to identify any potentially significant effects the project might have on the environment and instead merely raised possible increased effects the environment might have on the community as a result of poorer evacuation procedures.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal, like the trial court, pointed out that substantial evidence must be based on relevant information and facts; or at least reasonable inferences, assumptions, or expert opinion supported by facts. Unsubstantiated opinions, arguments, or speculations generally will not do. The court noted, however, that lay opinion may be considered substantial evidence where expertise is not necessary, which was not the case with the emergency evacuation issues raised by the Petitioners. The Court of Appeal explained again that Petitioners’ cited comments and letters were “mere speculation” and simply “dire predictions by nonexperts” and that they “fail[ed] to identify any factual foundation” for their assertions. Some comments were even directly contradicted by factual evidence in the record. Nowhere did Petitioners establish that any of the individuals whose testimony was cited were experts in evacuation planning. Thus, the court concluded that Petitioners’ claims did not constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project may have a significant impact on the environment.

– Blake C. Hyde

56789