248 Cal. App. 4th 91
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Project: 214,596 sq ft retail center (including ~184,946 sq ft Walmart) on ~23.72 acres; approvals included general plan amendment, zone change, site plan, conditional use permit, and parcel map.
- Plaintiff (Spring Valley Lake Association) filed CEQA and Planning & Zoning/Map Act challenge after City of Victorville certified an EIR and approved the project; Walmart intervened as real party in interest.
- Key general plan provisions at issue: IM 7.1.1.4 (requirement that new commercial/industrial development generate electricity on-site to maximum extent feasible) and IM 7.2.1.5 (requirement that new construction achieve 15% greater energy efficiency than 2008 Title 24).
- Trial court granted petition in part: found EIR inadequate as to on-site electricity feasibility and greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis, and found insufficient evidence that parcel map/zone change complied with IM 7.1.1.4; otherwise petition denied.
- Appeals: Walmart appealed the adverse CEQA and general-plan-consistency rulings; Association cross-appealed (1) failure to recirculate EIR after substantial revisions and (2) failure to make all findings required by Gov. Code §66474 before approving parcel map.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| EIR adequacy: analysis of feasibility of on-site electricity (IM 7.1.1.4) | Association: EIR lacks substantial evidence analyzing feasibility; City approval inconsistent with mandatory IM 7.1.1.4 | City/Walmart: Project need not meet every policy; there is sufficient record support that on-site generation is infeasible or will be addressed later | Court: Reverse — no substantial evidence supports finding on-site generation infeasible; EIR and responses fail to analyze feasibility; project inconsistent with mandatory IM 7.1.1.4 |
| GHG analysis (air quality) | Association: EIR fails to adequately analyze GHG impacts and relies on uncertain commitments to meet energy-efficiency measures | City/Walmart: EIR shows project will not substantially increase GHGs and will meet/exceed Title 24 standards | Court: Reverse — record does not show project will achieve IM 7.2.1.5 (15% > Title 24); inconsistent and unclear EIR statements leave GHG analysis unsupported |
| Recirculation of EIR after revisions (traffic, air quality, hydrology, biology) | Association: Revisions added significant new information requiring recirculation | City: Revisions clarified or amplified draft EIR; recirculation not required | Mixed: Court affirmed no recirculation needed for traffic and biological revisions, but reversed for air quality and hydrology — those revisions constituted "significant new information" requiring recirculation |
| Parcel map findings under Gov. Code §66474 | Association: City failed to make all required affirmative findings before approving parcel map | City: §66474 applies only to denials or is not broader than §66473.5 | Court: Reverse — agrees with AG opinion and authority that §66474 matters must be affirmatively addressed before approval; City failed to make required findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553 (discusses centrality of general plan consistency)
- Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova, 172 Cal.App.4th 603 (standard of review for general-plan consistency; deference to agency)
- Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 506 (EIR must contain adequate analysis; responses to comments cannot cure analytical gaps)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 6 Cal.4th 1112 (recirculation standard: ‘‘significant new information’’ definition)
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (recirculation standard and review scope)
- Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange, 131 Cal.App.4th 777 (projects inconsistent with fundamental, mandatory, clear general plan policies are not consistent overall)
- Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural etc. v. Board of Supervisors, 62 Cal.App.4th 1332 (project need not perfectly conform to every general plan policy)
Disposition: Walmart’s appeal affirmed in part and denied in part; Association’s cross-appeal granted in part (recirculation and parcel map findings issues), case remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion.