East Sacramento Partnerships for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento
5 Cal. App. 5th 281
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Encore proposed McKinley Village: a 336-unit residential infill project on ~48.75 acres in East Sacramento; City certified the EIR and approved the project by a 6–3 vote.
- EIR analyzed project and cumulative impacts (2030 general plan buildout), included a health risk assessment (diesel particulate cancer risk) and a traffic study using Level of Service (LOS) metrics; found all impacts could be mitigated to less than significant.
- Primary controversies: traffic impacts (LOS on local streets and freeways), adequacy of project description (permits, rezoning, driveway variances), alleged piecemealing (Alhambra tunnel, half-street closure, Sutter’s Landing connector), health risks (air toxics and methane), and general plan consistency (transportation, bikeways, noise).
- ESPLC sued for writ of mandate and declaratory/injunctive relief alleging CEQA violations and inconsistency with the general plan; trial court denied relief and ESPLC appealed.
- Court of Appeal reversed in part: rejected most CEQA challenges but found the EIR’s reliance on the general plan LOS policy lacked adequate explanation/substantial evidence to support the conclusion that certain LOS changes in the City core were not significant; remanded to correct the deficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project description omissions (development agreement, rezoning, unit increase, driveway variances) | Omitted approvals and material project changes rendered EIR defective and prejudiced public review | Final EIR updated descriptions, notice included development agreement; unit change minor; driveway variance disclosed in final EIR; no prejudice | Rejected — disclosures adequate; no prejudicial abuse of discretion shown |
| Piecemealing (Alhambra vehicular tunnel, 28th St half-street closure, Sutter’s Landing connector) | City split or deferred related future actions to avoid analyzing cumulative impacts | Tunnel was only feasibility study; half-street closure and connector not part of or required by the Project; not reasonably foreseeable | Rejected — no illegal piecemealing; feasibility studies and non-compelled future actions need not be analyzed |
| Health risks (existing environmental hazards, TACs, methane migration) | EIR failed to analyze exacerbation of air toxics/methane and risks to future residents | CEQA generally does not require analysis of how existing conditions affect future residents unless project would exacerbate those hazards; EIR included health risk analysis and monitoring/notice provisions | Rejected — plaintiff failed to show substantial evidence of exacerbation; EIR’s health analysis adequate under CBIA framework |
| Traffic significance thresholds (use of general plan LOS permitting LOS E/F in core) | Reliance on general plan LOS policy improperly forecloses fair argument that LOS increases are significant; EIR did not explain why LOS changes in core are not significant | City may use its GP thresholds; Project consistent with regional SCS streamlining; intersections properly analyzed; mitigation proposed | Reversed on this point — EIR failed to explain or provide substantial evidence why LOS degradations in the core (e.g., changes to LOS C→E or intersections reaching LOS F) are not significant; remand to correct transportation/circulation analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 47 Cal.3d 376 (1988) (CEQA review standard and scope of judicial inquiry)
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (2007) (appellate de novo review of administrative record in CEQA cases)
- County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185 (1977) (project description may evolve during CEQA process; limits on when supplemental EIR required)
- Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto, 208 Cal.App.4th 899 (2012) (development agreement is an approval that should be disclosed)
- Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Cmrs., 91 Cal.App.4th 1344 (2001) (piecemealing and limits of thresholds drawn from planning documents)
- California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 62 Cal.4th 369 (2015) (agencies need not analyze how existing environmental conditions affect future residents unless project exacerbates those conditions)
- Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera, 107 Cal.App.4th 1383 (2003) (prejudicial omission test for CEQA disclosures)
- Gentry v. City of Murrieta, 36 Cal.App.4th 1359 (1995) (unsubstantiated opinions do not constitute substantial evidence in CEQA challenges)
- State Water Resources Control Bd. Cases, 136 Cal.App.4th 674 (2006) (challenge to studies underlying EIR requires showing they are clearly inadequate)