Tehachapi First v. City of Tehachapi CA5
F072149
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 24, 2016Background
- Wal‑Mart proposed a 165,000 sq. ft. Supercenter in Tehachapi; City of Tehachapi was lead agency under CEQA. A draft EIR, final EIR, certification and project approval followed; plaintiff Tehachapi First sued.
- Trial court found the original EIR inadequate (water supply, off‑site traffic noise, traffic impacts) and issued a writ directing supplemental analysis.
- City prepared a revised draft and revised final EIR (including new off‑site traffic noise measurements and cumulative analysis), re‑certified the EIR and reapproved the project; City moved to discharge the writ.
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s order discharging the writ, asserting three CEQA errors in the revised EIR: (1) improper baseline noise measurement locations on residential lots; (2) misclassification of hotels as non‑noise‑sensitive (commercial) uses; (3) improper standards for determining when a project’s incremental noise contribution is “cumulatively considerable.”
- The Court of Appeal applied the abuse‑of‑discretion standard (§ 21168.5): legal errors reviewed de novo; factual determinations reviewed for substantial evidence, and affirmed the discharge of the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper baseline measurement location for off‑site traffic noise | Measurements should be taken at residential property lines/outdoor activity areas (to protect yards), not at or adjacent to building facades | Lead agency reasonably selected representative outdoor living areas near buildings; location identification is a factual, discretionary choice | Court held location of outdoor activity areas is a question of fact; City’s choice reviewed for substantial evidence and plaintiff failed to show lack of substantial evidence or legal error |
| Classification of hotels as noise‑sensitive uses | Hotels are noise‑sensitive (people sleep there) so residential/noise‑sensitive thresholds should apply | EIR merely acknowledged hotels “may” be noise‑sensitive and analyzed both possibilities; ultimately treated as commercial with substantial evidence supporting that factual determination | Court held the EIR did not definitively classify hotels as noise‑sensitive; no legal error shown; substantial‑evidence review supports City’s approach |
| Standard to decide when a project’s incremental noise is “cumulatively considerable” | City improperly used the same FTA‑derived thresholds for project‑level significance and for cumulatively‑considerable determination, rendering the latter meaningless and failing to capture that small individual contributions can be cumulatively important | City used related but different applications of FTA methodology: different baselines and a stair‑step vs. curve application; expert support shows standards were not identical and the adopted test was reasonable | Court held the “cumulatively considerable” test was described adequately and supported by substantial evidence; reasonableness is a factual question and City’s approach was not legally erroneous |
| Whether an individually minor contribution can be cumulatively considerable | Individually minor increases can still be a considerable contribution and City’s test risked ignoring such aggregation | City’s method accounted for cumulative context and was reasonable given the very small cumulative increases here; CEQA/regulations do not mandate a specific percentage test | Court rejected plaintiff’s argument as raising a factual/reasonableness dispute; no statutory/regulatory bar established and substantial evidence supported City’s approach |
Key Cases Cited
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (standards of review in CEQA proceedings)
- Gray v. County of Madera, 167 Cal.App.4th 1099 (use of general plan noise element in assessing significance)
- City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 176 Cal.App.4th 889 (choice of methodology in environmental review is reviewed under substantial evidence)
- Federation of Hillside & Canyon Assns. v. City of Los Angeles, 83 Cal.App.4th 1252 (agency applies an erroneous legal standard when methodology departs from law)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (deference to agency factual findings and substantial evidence standard)
- Wasatch Property Management v. Degrate, 35 Cal.4th 1111 (ordinary meaning of words—use of dictionary in interpretation)