Residential Project Exempt From CEQA Review Under Government Code Section 65457 As Consistent With Specific Plan For Which Program EIR Previously Certified; First District Also Holds New GHG Thresholds Do Not Constitute “New Information” Requiring Supplemental EIR For Specific Plan

by Miller Starr Regalia

In a recently published opinion construing Government Code § 65457’s exemption from environmental review for a residential development consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR was previously certified, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment rejecting a challenge to the City of Dublin’s use of the exemption to approve AvalonBay Communities, Inc.’s (“AvalonBay”) 7.2-acre development within the larger Dublin Transit Village Center. Concerned Dublin Citizens, et al. v. City of Dublin, et al. (2013 1st Dist., Div. 3) _____ Cal.App.4th _____, 2013 WL 1235649, filed 3/7/13, ordered pub’d 3/28/13.

The City approved the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the high-density, mixed-use transit center project near the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and certified a program EIR for it in 2002. The transit center specific plan provided for up to 1500 high density residential units, 2 million square feet of office, and 70,000 square feet of retail space. Its EIR analyzed impacts from full build-out of all authorized uses, anticipating “follow-on actions” and site-specific development approvals subject to “additional environmental review” but without specifying the level of required reviews. The plan designated numerous sites within it, and specified their permitted uses and development intensities, and densities, but also provided flexibility in the form of allowed transfers of uses and densities between sites so long as specified overall maximum development levels were not exceeded.

After a series of revised development proposals, AvalonBay sought entitlements in 2011 to develop Site C within the transit center as 100% residential, eliminating commercial, and other uses (except a fitness center), and reallocating 100 residential units from Site A to Site C. The transit center plan “strongly encouraged” but did not require retail uses on Site C. The City approved AvalonBay’s project entitlements and a related development agreement, finding them “exempt from CEQA under Government Code section 65457… as a residential project that is consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR has been certified.”

The trial court rejected a legal challenge to City’s actions brought by Carpenters Local Union No. 713 and a group of citizens, and the Court of Appeal affirmed its judgment denying a writ of mandate. Key holdings of the Court of Appeal include:

  • Considering whether an exemption applies is itself a form of “environmental review” under CEQA, i.e., the first and “jurisdictional” step of the “three-tiered process” described in CEQA case law. Thus, statements in the transit center specific plan EIR contemplating further environmental review for “follow-on” actions – without requiring a specific level of review – did not preclude application of the statutory exemption.
  • To qualify for the Government Code § 65457 exemption from CEQA’s requirements, (1) a project must be for residential development, (2) it must implement and be consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR was previously certified, and (3) the qualification to the exemption found in the statute’s last sentence must not apply, i.e., either no supplemental EIR is required under Public Resources Code § 21166 or such a supplemental EIR must already have been prepared and certified.
  • Regarding the standard of review the court held: A de novo standard of review applies to statutory interpretation, and the substantial evidence standard applies to review of the lead agency’s findings regarding whether each element of the exemption is satisfied. Government Code § 65457 does not require a determination as to whether the proposed project will have significant environmental effects so, in any event, and contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the “fair argument” test cannot apply in determining its applicability. Finally, the same “substantial evidence” standard of review used to determine whether a supplemental EIR is required under Public Resources Code § 21166 applies to whether Government Code § 65457’s qualification applies.
  • The City’s finding that the project was a “residential” development was correct; the only approved project on Site C was for 505 residential units and ancillary features. Notwithstanding the absence of a statutory definition, the parties all agreed the permitted project contained 100% residential units or other uses permitted within a residential zoning district. Moreover, further discretionary review by the City would be required to authorize any non-residential uses on Site C. The fact that the site was zoned for mixed-use development did not vitiate these points or automatically entitle future non-residential development to occur absent future discretionary site review and applicable environmental review processes.
  • AvalonBay’s residential project on Site C was consistent with the transit center’s specific plan despite its deletion of retail uses, which were only “encouraged” and not required by the plan. Nothing in CEQA Guidelines § 15168’s provisions governing program EIRs, nor in the specific plan EIR itself, mandated any particular level of environmental review for subsequent activities in the program, and nothing in them precluded use of an otherwise applicable exemption from CEQA.
  • The qualification for use of Government Code § 65457’s exemption did not apply because none of the circumstances specified in Public Resources Code § 21166 as requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR existed.  For example, the reallocation of 100 residential units between adjacent sites was expressly authorized by, and not a significant change to, the specific plan, and the overall maximum number of residential units remained unchanged.
  • Further, Appellant’s assertion that BAAQMD’s 2010 adoption of new thresholds of significance for GHG emissions constituted “significant and new information” requiring a supplemental specific plan EIR and precluding use of the exemption was also meritless. Even apart from the fact that the referenced thresholds had been set aside by a superior court judgment and were expressly prospective in application, substantial evidence supported City’s findings that they were not “new information” in any event. Even though the EIR didn’t analyze GHGs, it conducted an air quality analysis and could have analyzed such impacts; substantial evidence supported the City’s finding that information about GHGs and then potential impacts has long been known and available could have been addressed in the 2002 EIR’s air quality analysis, and is thus not “new information” requiring a supplemental EIR.
  • Further, the court held that “the adoption of guidelines for analyzing and evaluating the significance of data does not constitute new information if the underlying information was otherwise known or should have been known at the time the EIR was certified.”

The Concerned Dublin Citizens case doesn’t reach any surprising or ground-breaking conclusions, but it does provide helpful construction and guidance on the application of Government Code § 65457’s CEQA exemption for residential projects consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR has been certified. It also clarifies the applicability of Public Resources Code § 21166’s limited triggers for a supplemental EIR in a helpful manner that promotes CEQA’s policies favoring finality of review after an EIR has been duly certified and survived actual or potential challenge, and will discourage future lawsuits seeking to reopen environmental review based on alleged “new” GHG information or regulations.

Written by:

Miller Starr Regalia

Miller Starr Regalia 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):

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.


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 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:

- 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.