19 Cal. App. 5th 465
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- The Port of Los Angeles proposed SCIG, a near-dock BNSF railyard ~4 miles from the ports to handle up to 1.5 million lifts per year; FEIR process began in 2005, FEIR issued in 2013.
- FEIR acknowledged SCIG would divert most intermodal international cargo from BNSF’s Hobart yard (≈24 miles away) but concluded Hobart would continue to handle domestic/transload cargo and room for projected growth existed.
- Harbor Commission certified the FEIR and approved the project; multiple public-interest plaintiffs (including City of Long Beach and South Coast AQMD) and the Attorney General challenged certification in court.
- The trial court set aside certification, finding deficiencies in project description/indirect impacts (Hobart), air quality (ambient concentrations and cumulative impacts), noise, traffic, GHGs, and mitigation measures.
- Court of Appeal: affirmed that Attorney General is exempt from CEQA exhaustion requirements; affirmed FEIR is inadequate as to ambient pollutant concentrations and cumulative concentration impacts; reversed trial court on Hobart indirect impacts, GHGs, noise, transportation, some mitigation issues, and noncancer cumulative risk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of CEQA exhaustion to Attorney General | AG may raise novel issues despite not having raised them administratively; subdivision (d) exempts AG. | Appellants: AG must exhaust issues (issue exhaustion) like others; subdivision (d) limited. | AG is exempt from statutory exhaustion requirements under §21177(d). |
| Project description / indirect impacts (Hobart yard) | FEIR misleading by treating SCIG as replacing rather than increasing capacity; failed to analyze indirect effects from freeing Hobart capacity. | FEIR accurately described SCIG and analyzed impacts; growth at Hobart is market‑driven and not a reasonably foreseeable indirect impact of SCIG. | FEIR project description adequate; substantial evidence supports conclusion Hobart growth is independent and not an indirect impact requiring additional FEIR analysis. |
| Air quality — ambient pollutant concentrations and modeling methodology | Composite (worst‑case) single modeling run conceals year‑by‑year concentrations and frequency/duration of exceedances; prevents meaningful comparison with no‑project and understates impacts on nearby residents. | Composite emissions scenario is an accepted conservative screening method and supported by substantial evidence and protocol; additional runs impractical. | Composite methodology not per se misleading, but FEIR failed to disclose necessary detail (frequency, duration, year‑specific concentrations and comparisons) for ambient concentration impacts (AQ‑4); inadequacy requires correction. |
| Cumulative air impacts (ICTF expansion) & noncancer risks | FEIR omitted quantitative/meaningful combined analysis of two adjacent large railyard projects (SCIG and ICTF expansion), leaving the "big picture" out; cumulative concentration impacts inadequately analyzed. | Quantifying ICTF impacts via dispersion modeling impractical/unnecessary; DEIR had combined analysis earlier but RDEIR/FEIR omitted because ICTF EIR delayed. | FEIR’s cumulative analysis for ambient concentrations (AQ‑4) insufficient — must provide good‑faith, reasonable disclosure about cumulative concentrations from proximate projects; but FEIR’s conclusion on cumulative noncancer hazard (AQ‑7) supported by evidence and upheld. |
| Greenhouse gas consistency with plans | Project increases GHGs at full capacity; plaintiff: cannot claim consistency with plans that call for reductions if project raises emissions. | Project shifts drayage from truck to rail, increases per‑ton‑mile efficiency, and is consistent with GHG reduction policies comparing to no‑project scenario. | FEIR’s qualitative GHG consistency analysis (GHG‑2) adequate: agency may use project vs. no‑project efficiency comparison; GHG quantification (GHG‑1) showing a significant impact remains disclosed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond, 184 Cal.App.4th 70 (Cal. Ct. App.) (standard of review: agency action reviewed for prejudicial abuse of discretion)
- Sierra Club v. City of Orange, 163 Cal.App.4th 523 (Cal. Ct. App.) (exhaustion doctrine requires specificity of issues raised administratively)
- Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley, 124 Cal.App.4th 430 (Cal. Ct. App.) (Attorney General exempt from exhaustion requirement)
- San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced, 149 Cal.App.4th 645 (Cal. Ct. App.) (project description must accurately reflect nature/scope of project)
- El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth v. County of El Dorado, 122 Cal.App.4th 1591 (Cal. Ct. App.) (distinguishing between project description and impact analysis)
- Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera, 107 Cal.App.4th 1383 (Cal. Ct. App.) (EIR must include facts and analysis sufficient for public review)
- Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo, 157 Cal.App.4th 1437 (Cal. Ct. App.) (agency may rely on expert predictions for growth forecasts)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife, 62 Cal.4th 204 (Cal.) (limits on using statewide scoping‑plan comparisons to show project consistency with AB32)