C086345
Cal. Ct. App.Dec 18, 2019Background
- The City of Sacramento adopted its 2035 General Plan and certified a program EIR in March 2015 after releasing a draft in August 2014 and later issuing a February 24, 2015 list of 13 supplemental changes considered before the March 3, 2015 adoption.
- Plaintiff Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation petitioned for writ of mandate and declaratory relief to set aside the General Plan and EIR, challenging an introductory paragraph of the Plan and multiple CEQA analyses (traffic, GHG/air quality, cyclist safety, no‑project alternative), and arguing recirculation was required due to the supplemental changes.
- The Plan’s mobility policy (M 1.2.2) revised LOS thresholds and allowed LOS E/F in certain areas; the EIR relied on those standards to conclude LOS impacts were less than significant.
- After draft circulation, the City made four supplemental changes Citizens claimed constituted "significant new information": deletion of certain volume‑to‑capacity ratios and deletion/modification of several mobility and transit‑connection policies.
- The trial court upheld the Plan and EIR; the Court of Appeal affirmed on appeal, rejecting Citizens’ facial and CEQA challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial challenge to introductory Plan language (internal consistency/Gov. Code §65300.5) | Introductory sentence vests City discretion to balance policies and could authorize approving projects inconsistent with Plan, violating internal consistency | Language governs future consistency determinations and does not make the Plan’s written policies internally inconsistent | Rejected — no facial invalidity; no internal inconsistency in the Plan text and future as‑applied disputes are not grounds to void the Plan now |
| Traffic analysis — reliance on LOS thresholds | EIR improperly avoided analyzing significance of LOS F impacts and failed to study/mitigate significant traffic effects | New statutory/regulatory framework (§21099 and certified CEQA Guideline §15064.3) renders automobile delay/LOS non‑significant for CEQA; appellate court may apply current law | Moot/Rejected — under §21099(b)(2) automobile delay measured solely by LOS cannot be a CEQA significant impact; Citizens’ LOS‑based claim fails |
| "No project" alternative adequacy | EIR’s no‑project (2030 Plan) discussion was truncated, speculative, and insufficient to support City’s rejection of the alternative | The EIR compared impacts, explained why the no‑project alternative would not meet objectives and could have greater impacts; record supports infeasibility finding | Rejected — Citizens forfeited many record citations; substantial evidence supports City’s rejection/infeasibility finding |
| Recirculation after supplemental changes (§21092.1 / §15088.5) | Four supplemental changes added significant new information that materially worsened impacts and thus required recirculation | Changes did not alter project development assumptions or physical impacts; deletions were policy/technical and did not deprive public of meaningful comment | Rejected — substantial evidence supports City’s decision not to recirculate; changes did not create new or substantially more severe physical environmental impacts |
| GHG/air quality and cyclist safety analyses | Traffic assumptions and deleted ratios undermined GHG/air analysis; EIR failed to analyze three‑foot cyclist law impacts | Analyses were adequate and changes did not alter physical emissions projections; Citizens offered no recorded evidence | Rejected/Forfeited — arguments undeveloped and unsupported by record; no substantial evidence of inadequacy |
Key Cases Cited
- Federation of Hillside & Canyon Assns. v. City of Los Angeles, 126 Cal.App.4th 1180 (internal consistency and limited judicial interference with local general plans)
- Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th 502 (CEQA purpose and abuse‑of‑discretion standard for EIR review)
- T‑Mobile West LLC v. City & County of San Francisco, 6 Cal.5th 1107 (standards for facial preemption/invalidity challenges)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 6 Cal.4th 1112 (recirculation is exceptional; new information must be significant)
- South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada, 221 Cal.App.4th 316 (burden on challenger to show no substantial evidence supports decision not to recirculate)
- Naraghi Lakes Neighborhood Preservation Assn. v. City of Modesto, 1 Cal.App.5th 9 (project consistency standard: project must further GP objectives and not obstruct attainment)