Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin CA1/3
214 Cal. App. 4th 1301
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- The City of Dublin exempted a transit center Site C residential project from CEQA under Gov. Code § 65457 because it allegedly complies with a certified specific plan.
- The underlying Dublin Transit Center EIR was prepared as a program EIR in 2002, describing stage 1 development and anticipated follow-on actions.
- AvalonBay proposed Site C developments increasing from 405 to 505 residential units, removing previously planned ground-floor retail in favor of residential use, with future retail possibly reactivated through discretionary review.
- The city approved a Stage 1 Development Plan amendment, Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and a Development Agreement, finding exemption under § 65457.
- Appellants filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the exemption, and the trial court denied relief, upholding the exemption as supported by substantial evidence.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the 65457 exemption applied and that the project remained residential under the exemption despite mixed-use zoning and possible future retail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the project qualify for § 65457 exemption? | Appellants argue exemption requires no potential significant effects. | City argues project fits exemption since it is residential and consistent with a certified specific plan. | Yes; exemption applies. |
| Is the site a residential development under § 65457? | Appellants contend Site C is mixed-use due to proposed retail; thus not purely residential. | Project as approved is residential; retail is not approved and would require further review. | Yes; project is residential for § 65457 purposes. |
| Is the project consistent with the transit center specific plan? | Appellants contend removal of retail undermines mixed-use policy, making it inconsistent. | Specific plan permits mixed uses but encourages retail; absence of retail does not render inconsistent. | Consistent with the specific plan. |
| Did program EIR tiering and 21166 information require further review? | Appellants claim new effects/information (e.g., GHG thresholds) require supplemental review. | New thresholds were not new information; impacts were already known or addressed. | No supplemental EIR required. |
| Did the 100-unit reallocation within sites A and C constitute a significant change requiring supplemental EIR? | Reallocation of units is a significant change to the specific plan. | Reallocation within the transit center is authorized and not a significant change. | Not a significant change; no supplemental EIR required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, 54 Cal.App.4th 106 (Cal. App. Dist. 1st) (three-tier CEQA review; standards for exemptions and substantial evidence)
- Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation v. City of Encinitas, 29 Cal.App.4th 1597 (Cal. App. Dist. 4th) (court's independence in reviewing exemption decisions)
- Great Oaks Water Co. v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist., 170 Cal.App.4th 956 (Cal. App. Dist. 6th) (substantial evidence standard for exemption findings)
- Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma, 6 Cal.App.4th 1307 (Cal. App. Dist. 1st) (21166 supplemental EIR trigger interpretation)
- Abatti v. Imperial Irr. Dist., 205 Cal.App.4th 650 (Cal. App. Dist. 4th) (review standard for agency decisions not to require additional review)
- Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego, 196 Cal.App.4th 515 (Cal. App. Dist. 4th) (new information thresholds for GHGs not always requiring supplemental review)
- Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. California Department of Health Services, 38 Cal.App.4th 1574 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd) (new regulatory thresholds may not constitute new information)
- Bowman v. City of Petaluma, 185 Cal.App.3d 1065 (Cal. App. Dist. 1st) (scope of EIR updates vs. reliance on existing EIR for subsequent actions)