East Sacramento Partnership etc. v. City of Sacramento
C079614M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 6, 2016Background
- Encore proposed McKinley Village: an infill residential project of ~336 units on a 48.75-acre site in East Sacramento; City certified an EIR and approved the project.
- EIR analyzed project and cumulative impacts (buildout to City’s 2030 general plan); traffic (LOS A–F) was a central issue; health risk and methane studies were included.
- City relied on its general plan Mobility Element (allowing LOS E–F in the downtown/midtown core) and SACOG sustainable communities consistency for certain streamlining.
- ESPLC (neighborhood group) sued under CEQA alleging defects in project description, piecemealing, failure to analyze health risks (air/methane), failure to address traffic impacts (thresholds and mitigation), and general plan inconsistency.
- Trial court denied relief; Court of Appeal reversed solely on CEQA deficiencies in the traffic/threshold analysis and remanded for correction of the EIR.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of project description (permits/approvals) | EIR omitted/failed to analyze required approvals (development agreement, rezoning, unit increase, driveway variances) | City: final EIR disclosed approvals; changes were typical and did not prejudice public review | Held for City: disclosures and notices were adequate; no shown prejudice |
| Piecemealing (future tunnel/connector) | City improperly avoided EIR for related future projects (Alhambra tunnel, half-street closure, Sutter’s Landing connector) | City: tunnel was only to be studied (feasibility), not approved; closures/changes were not reasonably foreseeable or were minor | Held for City: no illegal piecemealing; tunnel infeasible or speculative; half-street closure and other measures not improper |
| Analysis of health risks (TACs, landfill methane) | Project exacerbates existing air and methane hazards and required further analysis/mitigation | City: CBIA controls; agencies need not analyze existing environmental effects on future residents unless project exacerbates them; record lacked evidence of exacerbation | Held for City: no substantial evidence of exacerbation; EIR health analysis adequate on record presented |
| Traffic thresholds of significance (LOS reliance on general plan) | Using general plan LOS policy to deem LOS E/F not significant forecloses fair-argument review; EIR fails to explain why similar LOS changes in core aren’t significant | City: thresholds derive from Mobility Element and CEQA allows agency thresholds; project consistent with SACOG SCS for some streamlining | Held for Plaintiff on this issue: Court found EIR relied solely on general plan policy without explaining why LOS increases in core are not significant and failed to provide substantial evidence; reversed and remanded for EIR correction |
| Mitigation feasibility for traffic | Mitigation (signal retiming, fair‑share fees, lane changes) ineffective or infeasible (e.g., conflicts with bike plan) | City: mitigation supported by traffic model appendices and fair‑share/monitoring program; bike lane loss is de minimis and within discretion | Held: Most mitigation found adequately supported on record; discrete bike-lane contention did not persuade court to set aside approval; only traffic-significance explanation remanded |
| Consistency with general plan | Project conflicts with multiple general-plan transportation, health, transit, noise policies | City: deference to legislative interpretation; some plan provisions changed during appeal making several claims moot | Held: Court upheld consistency findings given deference and plan amendments; noise/health policy challenges lacked mandate-type violations or substantial evidence of inconsistency |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 47 Cal.3d 376 (1988) (standard for judicial review and limits on court substituting judgment for agency expertise)
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (2007) (appellate de novo review of administrative record for legal error and substantial‑evidence support)
- County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185 (1977) (project description may change during CEQA process; EIR scope principles)
- California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 62 Cal.4th 369 (2015) (agencies generally need not analyze existing environmental conditions’ effects on future users absent project‑caused exacerbation)
- Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera, 107 Cal.App.4th 1383 (2003) (prejudice requirement for informational omissions; informed decisionmaking/public participation standard)
- Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency, 103 Cal.App.4th 98 (2002) (regulatory compliance cannot automatically negate fair‑argument CEQA inquiry)
- Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Comm’rs, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344 (2001) (general plan compatibility does not conclusively resolve CEQA significance questions)
- Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency, 116 Cal.App.4th 1099 (2004) (agency must explain why certain environmental effects are not significant; thresholds cannot foreclose fair argument)