85 Cal.App.5th 1101
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background:
- DGS prepared an EIR for a project to demolish and replace the State Capitol Annex, build an underground visitor center on the Capitol's west side, and construct an underground parking garage; plaintiffs Save Our Capitol! and Save the Capitol, Save the Trees challenged the EIR under CEQA.
- During the CEQA process DGS (1) redesigned the visitor center (open-air ramps, raised upper plaza and skylight) and later disclosed the new Annex exterior would be a pleated glass curtain wall, and (2) relocated the underground garage from the Capitol's south side to east of the new Annex; tree impact estimates increased from ~20–30 to 56 removals and 133 affected trees.
- Plaintiffs asserted the EIR (a) lacked a stable, adequate project description (particularly the Annex exterior and parking location), (b) failed to analyze/mitigate impacts to historic/cultural resources, aesthetics, biological resources (trees and birds), traffic, and utilities, (c) inadequately considered alternatives (notably moving the visitor center to the south), and (d) should have been recirculated after significant project changes.
- The trial court denied the petitions; on appeal the Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding the EIR’s project description, historical-resources and aesthetics analyses, and alternatives analysis violated CEQA and remanding with instructions to revise and recirculate those portions.
- The court upheld the EIR’s analyses for biological resources (tree inventory/mitigation approach), bird-strike mitigation, traffic and utilities conclusions, and found DGS’s decision not to recirculate was supported by substantial evidence as to tree impacts and boundary adjustments.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project description stability (Annex exterior & parking move) | DGS changed key elements (glass curtain wall, garage location) in final EIR, denying public meaningful comment; description thus unstable and inadequate | Design evolved under CMAR; draft/recirculated EIRs gave sufficient envelope and objectives; final details merely refined the project | Reversed as to Annex exterior: final disclosure of glass curtain wall was a material change that deprived public of meaningful comment; project description inadequate on that point. Parking relocation alone did not render description unstable. |
| Historic resources & aesthetics analysis (including Annex glass effects and visitor center impacts on Capitol Mall vista) | EIR failed to meaningfully analyze compatibility of glass Annex with Historic Capitol and failed to include a view rendering of the visitor center's effect on the protected Capitol Mall vista | Final EIR addressed compatibility and used mitigation plans/standards; photographic/cross-section materials were adequate; compliance with standards (SOIS, CALGreen, LEED) supports non-significance conclusions | Reversed as to historical resources and aesthetics: analysis was deficient because the public had no chance to comment on the glass design and the EIR lacked adequate depiction/analysis of visitor center effects on the Capitol Mall vista; decision remanded for revision/recirculation. |
| Biological resources (trees and birds) | EIR lacked complete inventory/analysis, relied improperly on future plans and local ordinance, overstated transplant success, and underestimated bird-strike risk from glass | EIR provided tree numbers, maps, mitigation commitments (ANSI A300, SOIS, tree preservation/landscape plans), and bird-mitigation (fritting) with cited evidence showing reduced strike risk; further detail was appropriately reserved to required mitigation plans | Affirmed: EIR’s tree and bird analyses were adequate and reliance on future, bounded mitigation plans and regulatory compliance met CEQA standards; increase in trees affected did not require recirculation as "significant new information." |
| Alternatives & recirculation (visitor center south-side alternative and recirculation duty) | Because DGS moved the garage (final EIR) it should have studied moving the visitor center to the south (a feasible alternative that would meet objectives and lessen West Lawn impacts); failure to study that alternative and to recirculate was prejudicial | DGS considered a reasonable range of alternatives and rejected others as infeasible or inconsistent with objectives; relocation of garage did not create a feasible alternative that would meet objectives and avoid impacts | Reversed on alternatives: EIR failed to consider a reasonable alternative (moving the visitor center to the south) that could meet most objectives and reduce significant West Lawn impacts; remand required. Court found DGS’s decision not to recirculate based on tree-count and boundary changes was supported by substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (CEQA review standards; procedural vs. substantive review)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (EIR sufficiency and informational requirements)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 6 Cal.4th 1112 (recirculation guidance and standard of review)
- Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th 502 (mixed question review; sufficiency of EIR detail)
- County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185 (project description stability; CEQA public participation purpose)
- Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters v. City of Los Angeles, 76 Cal.App.5th 1154 (when changes do not render project description unstable)
- Lotus v. Department of Transportation, 223 Cal.App.4th 645 (construction impacts to tree root systems and CEQA analysis)
- East Sacramento Partnerships for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento, 5 Cal.App.5th 281 (regulatory compliance cannot foreclose consideration of substantial evidence of impacts)