Lotus v. Department of Transportation
223 Cal. App. 4th 645
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Caltrans prepared and certified an EIR and approved a project to realign and widen ~1 mile of US Route 101 through Richardson Grove State Park to accommodate STAA trucks and improve safety/goods movement.
- The park contains high-quality old-growth redwood trees; the project would not remove old-growth trees but would place cut, fill, and impervious surfaces within structural root zones of many redwoods (tables and maps in the EIR identify affected trees and depths).
- The FEIR incorporated various avoidance/minimization/mitigation measures (e.g., use of pneumatic excavators, arborist monitoring, Cement Treated Permeable Base, restorative planting, watering) and concluded no significant impacts with those measures.
- Petitioners (environmental groups and individuals) challenged the EIR under CEQA, arguing it failed to (among other things) analyze and disclose the significance of impacts to old-growth redwood root systems and to adopt enforceable mitigation/monitoring for any significant effects.
- The trial court found Caltrans’ mitigation monitoring program adequate and denied the writ; the Court of Appeal reversed in part, holding the EIR failed to evaluate significance of root-system impacts and remanded for correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of EIR environmental setting description | EIR failed to describe nature/location/extent of each old-growth root zone affected | EIR‘s tables, maps, and narrative sufficiently described the setting | Held adequate — maps/tables provided necessary baseline information |
| Adequacy of project description | EIR lacked technical detail (e.g., Autoturn inputs) needed to evaluate impacts | CEQA requires only a general description; detailed technical inputs unnecessary | Held for Caltrans — general project description was sufficient |
| Analysis of impacts to old-growth redwood root systems | EIR failed to identify a significance threshold or evaluate whether predicted root impacts were significant; improperly folded mitigation into the impact determination | Caltrans relied on experts and mitigation measures to conclude impacts would be less than significant | Held for Petitioners — EIR unlawfully omitted a stand‑alone significance analysis for root impacts; must analyze significance, consider alternatives, and adopt enforceable mitigation/monitoring if impacts found significant |
| Cumulative traffic impacts with other STAA projects | Combined incremental effects with other Caltrans STAA projects could be cumulatively considerable; must be analyzed | EIR concluded project would not increase commercial truck traffic; cited studies showing negligible or efficiency-based effects | Held for Caltrans — plaintiffs’ evidence did not show a required cumulative impact analysis was necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- State Water Resources Control Bd. Cases, 136 Cal.App.4th 674 (explaining standard of review in CEQA mandate proceedings)
- Village Laguna v. Board of Supervisors, 134 Cal.App.3d 1022 (CEQA requires agencies to disclose the analytic route from evidence to action when approving significant impacts)
- Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council, 229 Cal.App.3d 1011 (EIR must identify specific mitigation measures for significant effects)
- County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185 (project description is the sine qua non of an adequate EIR)
- Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. County of Tulare, 70 Cal.App.4th 20 (EIR should balance technical accuracy with public understanding; general description requirement)
- Lincoln Place Tenants Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 155 Cal.App.4th 425 (lead agencies must consider and include mitigation or alternatives that avoid or substantially lessen significant effects)