Appellate Court Rejects CEQA Claims on Project Modifications Made After Final EIR Published

by Holland & Knight LLP
Contact

Holland & Knight LLP

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • California's Fourth District Court of Appeal has provided useful guidance on processing requirements for environmental review documents prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when project modifications are required by decision-makers after a final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been published.
  • InResidents Against Specific Plan 380 v. County of Riverside, the court held that CEQA's informational requirements had been satisfied because the project modifications would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts as compared to those identified in the draft and final EIRs.
  • After the appellant sought a writ of mandate in the trial court asserting that the County failed to comply with procedural, informational and substantive provisions of CEQA, the trial court denied the petition in its entirety and entered judgment in favor of the County and the applicant. The appellate court affirmed on all claims.

In Residents Against Specific Plan 380 v. County of Riverside, California's Fourth District Court of Appeal provides useful guidance on processing requirements for environmental review documents prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when project modifications are required by decision-makers – in this case, the Riverside County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors – after a final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been published.

The court, in an opinion published on March 15, 2017, soundly rejected all of the appellant's claims and held that CEQA's informational requirements had been satisfied because the project modifications would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts as compared to those identified in the draft and final EIRs.

Case Background

The project at issue involved a general plan amendment, a change of zone and a specific plan adoption proposed by the Hanna Marital Trust (applicant) in the County of Riverside (County). On July 28, 2011, the County announced the release of a draft EIR analyzing 320 residential units and 650,000 square feet of office and retail use allocated between eight separate planning areas. After release of the draft EIR for public review and then preparation of a final EIR in response to public comments, the project was modified at both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors hearings. At the Planning Commission hearing, four planning areas were modified and the scale of the development was reduced. (Because the project involved a general plan amendment, California's Housing Accountability Act did not restrict the County's ability to reduce the size of the project.) At the Board of Supervisors hearing, the project was further modified to increase the overall scale of development back up to the totals analyzed in the final EIR but also shift development within planning areas by moving denser development away from neighboring low-density residential areas into the center of the project site.

At both stages, the County's environmental consulting firm analyzed the project modifications and concluded that the modifications would not create new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of impacts and that the final EIR did not need to be recirculated to the public. Specifically, the environmental consulting firm's conclusion that the Planning Commission's project modifications would not result in any new significant impacts rested on the fact that the scale of development had been reduced. The consulting firm's conclusions that the Board of Supervisor's project modifications would not result in new significant impacts relied on fact that denser development had been relocated to the center of the site, thereby reducing impacts to the surrounding, existing uses.

The table below demonstrates how the project was analyzed in the final EIR compared to the project that was ultimately approved by the Board of Supervisors; the final development totals remained unchanged, but the allocation and arrangement of uses within the planning areas were substantially reconfigured.

California Fourth District Court of Appeal

Source: California Fourth District Court of Appeal

On Dec. 18, 2012, the Board of Supervisors voted to certify the final EIR and tentatively approve the general plan amendment, zone change and specific plan adoption. The County planning staff and applicant then spent several months modifying the approval documents to reflect the project modifications. On Nov. 5, 2013, the Board of Supervisors issued final approvals.

After the appellant sought a writ of mandate in the trial court asserting that the County failed to comply with procedural, informational and substantive provisions of CEQA, the trial court denied the petition in its entirety and entered judgment in favor of the County and the applicant. The appellate court affirmed on all claims.

Court Rejects Appellant's Procedural Arguments

The court rejected all of appellant's procedural claims, including the claims that the County substantially modified the project after approving it; approved the project without concurrently adopting findings, a statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation plan; and failed to recirculate the final EIR after modifying the project.

Most notably, the court's holding that the County did not need to recirculate the final EIR after modifying the project confirms a decision-maker's ability to make project modifications after a final EIR has been published. Specifically, the appellant argued that the project modifications would increase certain impacts. In each instance, the court held that recirculation was not necessary pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 based on the County environmental consulting firm's analysis that the project modifications would not result in any significant new or substantially more severe impacts.

For example, the appellant argued that changing the designation in one planning area from medium density residential to mixed use would increase traffic impacts and change traffic patterns. The court was satisfied with the County environmental consulting firm's conclusion that because the total number of residential units and amount of commercial development did not change from that analyzed in the final EIR, no additional traffic impacts were expected. Additionally, the appellant argued that moving the mixed use designation next to a conservation area would create additional biological impacts. Again, the court was satisfied by the consulting firm's analysis – in this case, supported by the rationale that since the final EIR had considered impacts related to conservation area adjacency in connection with a different mixed use planning area and given that mitigation measures would address conservation area adjacency issues.

Further, while the Notice of Determination contained erroneous information – it incorporated elements of the project description as it existed after the Planning Commission hearing in October 2012 and not the project as it was approved by the Board of Supervisors in November 2013 – the court concluded that the errors did not justify unwinding the County's approval of the project. The court found that the Notice of Determination still complied with the informational requirements of CEQA. Moreover, the appellant filed its petition for writ of mandate during the 30-day statute of limitations established by the Notice of Determination, so any remedy to extend the statute of limitations would have provided no relief to the appellant.

Court Upholds County's Rejection of Suggested Mitigation Measures

Finally, the court held that the County adequately considered specific suggestions for mitigating the significant and unavoidable air quality and noise impacts. During the public comment period, certain air quality mitigation measures were suggested by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the neighboring city of Temecula. Specifically, the SCAQMD suggested use of more stringent construction equipment in order to reduce air quality emissions. The court found that the County's rejection of the SCAQMD measure, based on the rationale that the proposed equipment meeting higher emissions standards would not be available at the time of construction, was sufficiently detailed to support its rejection of the measure. The court also upheld the County's rejection of the City of Temecula's suggestion to comply with certain energy code requirements in favor of a performance standard, which would give the applicant flexibility and would reduce enforcement problems with the more prescriptive measure. Finally, the court held that the County did not abuse its discretion by failing to adopt, or even respond to, measures suggested by the appellant to reduce air quality and noise impacts. The appellant's suggestions were submitted the day before the Board of Supervisors' hearing and, as the court noted, more than 14 months after the close of the public comment period.

Conclusion

Ultimately, this case presents useful guidance on how CEQA's informational directive, allowing for ample public review and comment, can be balanced with engaged decision-making bodies that aim to modify and refine a development project up until the final hearing and even after a final EIR has been published.

Written by:

Holland & Knight LLP
Contact
more
less

Holland & Knight LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.