Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland
195 Cal. App. 4th 884
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Real Parties proposed a 64-acre Oak to Ninth Project along Oakland’s estuary; City certified an EIR for seismic and other impacts.
- Alliance challenged the EIR; trial court granted mandamus in part, finding inadequate analysis of seismic risks and mitigation.
- City revised the EIR (Revised EIR) and recertified it; trial court discharged the writ.
- Revised EIR analyzed seismic risks, liquefaction, and earthquake-induced settlement, incorporating Building Code and CGS guidelines as mitigation avenues.
- Mitigation measures F.1 (ground shaking) and F.2 (liquefaction/settlement) require site-specific geotechnical investigations and conformance with Building Code and CGS guidelines.
- Alliance argued the revisions did not guarantee less-than-significant impacts or sufficiently defined mitigation; City and Real Parties moved to discharge mandamus, which was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revised seismic impacts analysis satisfies CEQA thresholds | Alliance argues thresholds exceed CEQA appendix G limits | Rivera and City assert thresholds align with appendix G and project context | Thresholds align with CEQA guidelines; analysis adequate |
| Whether mitigation measures reduce seismic impacts to less than significant | Alliance claims evidence insufficient to show reductions meet Building Code standards | City relied on Building Code, CGS guidelines, and geotechnical investigations as substantial evidence | Yes; evidence supports less-than-significant impact after mitigation |
| Whether mitigation was impermissibly deferred | CNPS-like arguments that future design standards defer mitigation | Mitigation commitments exist with enforceable compliance through codes and site-specific studies | Not improper deferral; commitments and regulatory framework provide adequate assurance |
Key Cases Cited
- Tracy First v. City of Tracy, 177 Cal.App.4th 912 (Cal.App.4th 2009) (affirms reliance on building standards as feasible mitigation evidence)
- Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Food & Agriculture, 136 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal.App.4th 2005) (regulatory reliance not adequate to substitute CEQA mitigations)
- Gentry v. City of Murrieta, 36 Cal.App.4th 1359 (Cal.App.4th 1995) (plans comply with ordinances and standards; mitigation plans within regulatory framework)
- Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council, 229 Cal.App.3d 1011 (Cal.App.3d 1991) (agency may defer some mitigation details under identified performance criteria)
- Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296 (Cal.App.3d 1988) (deferral allowed where mitigation measures are committed and standards specified)
- California Native Plant Soc’y v. City of Rancho Cordova, 172 Cal.App.4th 603 (Cal.App.4th 2009) (CNPS framework for deferred mitigation under future actions)
- Gentry v. City of Ukiah, 2 Cal.App.4th 720 (Cal.App.4th 1991) (plans constrained by ordinances and standards enforceable as mitigation)
- Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Cmrs., 91 Cal.App.4th 1344 (Cal.App.4th 2001) (rejects uniform thresholds; site-specific analysis preferred)
- California Oak Foundation v. Regents of University of California, 188 Cal.App.4th 227 (Cal.App.4th 2010) (baseline geological description not always fatal to analysis; depends on context)