225 Cal. App. 4th 173
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- The City of Woodland approved Gateway II: a commercial development (reduced at approval to 61.3 acres and up to ~340,000 sq ft) on formerly agricultural land; Petrovich is the developer.
- CCEC filed a CEQA petition challenging certification of the final EIR and project approval, arguing the project conflicts with the general plan, mitigation for urban decay is inadequate, feasible alternatives (mixed-use) were not meaningfully considered, and energy impacts were not properly analyzed.
- The City certified the EIR, adopted mitigation measures (including five urban-decay measures and commitments to comply with Title 24 and CALGreen), and rejected the mixed-use alternative as infeasible / environmentally inferior.
- The trial court denied CCEC’s petition; CCEC appealed and the City cross-appealed the trial court’s partial denial of its costs request.
- The Court of Appeal (Third Dist.) held portions of CCEC’s general-plan claim under planning/zoning law were forfeited, but found multiple CEQA defects in the EIR and mitigation and reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conflict with General Plan (urban decay / zoning) | Gateway II conflicts with the City general plan goals to revitalize and preserve downtown because it will cause urban decay. | City: planning/zoning challenge not preserved under Gov. Code §65009; also argued CEQA process addressed urban-decay concerns. | Planning-and-zoning challenge forfeited (petitioner didn’t plead it separately). CEQA-based urban-decay review preserved and reached on merits. |
| Adequacy of urban-decay mitigation (Measures 4.11-2(a)-(d), 4.11-3(a)) | Mitigations are vague, speculative, delegate study/implementation to developer or staff, and do not guarantee mitigation of identified urban-decay impacts. | City: measures (land-use controls, market studies, fair-share plans, coordination on County Fair Mall) are permissible, programmatic, and will be implemented (and some mitigation exists). | Majority of urban-decay measures inadequate under CEQA: only 4.11-2(a) (land-use control limiting primary uses) is permissible but insufficient alone; 4.11-2(b)-(d) and 4.11-3(a) are speculative, improperly delegate key study duties to applicant, lack success criteria/standards, and fail to ensure enforceable mitigation. |
| Consideration of mixed-use alternative | Mixed-use (smaller, denser, local-serving commercial + housing) is feasible and would reduce some impacts; EIR’s rejection lacks substantial evidence and meaningful consideration. | City: EIR identified economic infeasibility originally; Council had discretion and ultimately concluded mixed-use would have greater environmental impacts. | EIR/record do not support Council’s unexplained shift from economic infeasibility to claiming mixed-use was environmentally superior; agency failed to disclose analytical route and meaningful consideration; rejection unsupported by substantial evidence. |
| Energy impacts analysis (transportation, construction, operation, renewables) | EIR failed to analyze transportation energy, construction and operational energy for all components, and did not consider renewable energy alternatives; relying on Title 24/CALGreen is insufficient. | City: compliance with Building Code and CALGreen addresses energy; reduced project size mitigates some impacts; no significant energy impacts. | EIR inadequate under Appendix F: it failed to analyze transportation energy, omitted construction/operational energy for many assumed uses, and did not consider renewable-energy mitigation; reliance on Title 24/CALGreen alone was insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado, 202 Cal.App.4th 1156 (discusses program EIRs and CEQA procedure)
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (standards of review for CEQA; deference vs. de novo review of procedure)
- Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson, 130 Cal.App.4th 1173 (urban decay is a cognizable CEQA environmental effect; fee/study mitigation must be tied to actual mitigation)
- Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296 (lead agency cannot delegate EIR preparation/primary impact study responsibility to applicant)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 6 Cal.4th 1112 (EIR is the heart of CEQA; analytical route must be disclosed)
- Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, 87 Cal.App.4th 99 (fee commitments without assurance of mitigation are inadequate)