City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Citation123 F.3d 1142
Decision Date13 September 1996
Docket NumberCARMEL-BY-THE-SEA,No. 94-16234,94-16234
Parties, 27 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,428, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6578, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,743 CITY OF; Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District; Hatton Canyon Coalition; Sierra Club, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; Admiral James Busey; Federal Highway Administration; Thomas D. Larson; California Department of Transportation; James Van Loben Sels; Thomas L. Pollock; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Rachel B. Hooper, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, San Francisco, CA, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Martin W. Matzen and Joan M. Pepin, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, and Antonio R. Anziano, San Francisco, CA, for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Spencer Williams, Senior District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-92-20002 SW (PVT).

Before: NORRIS, BEEZER and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

BEEZER, Circuit Judge:

ORDER

The Opinion filed September 13, 1996, is withdrawn.

OPINION

This appeal arises from the proposed realignment of California State Highway 1 from the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea to nearby Hatton Canyon. The responsible governmental agencies studied this proposal and others and issued an Environmental Impact Statement/Report as required by state and federal law.

Plaintiffs City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District, Hatton Canyon Coalition and Sierra Club challenged the adequacy of this statement/report under the National Environmental Policy Act, California Environmental Quality Act and Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs filed this timely appeal.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

I

California State Highway 1 (Highway 1) extends from San Clemente in Orange County to Rockport in Mendocino County, California. Over an approximately three-mile stretch through the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (City of Carmel), motorists traveling on Highway 1 confront severe congestion at peak hours. Highway 1 begins as a four-lane divided highway at the northern end of this section, near the Highway 68 interchange. As Highway 1 passes through the City of Carmel it funnels into a two-lane undivided highway, south of Ocean Avenue. Over the next several miles Highway 1 is controlled and congested, by three traffic lights and numerous flanking intersections and driveways. The lack of sufficient left-turning lanes adds to the traffic problem.

California transportation officials list this stretch of Highway 1 as: "one of the most heavily traveled two-lane highways in the State." 7 SAR 2083. 1 This section of Highway 1 is also dangerous: the rate of traffic accidents in this two-lane section of Highway 1 exceeds the state average. 24 SAR 7652. In 1990, traffic reached an average of 40,000 cars per day and an average of 60,000 cars per day at one location on this stretch. 24 SAR 7650. This volume increases during weekends and the summer months. 24 SAR 7651.

Highway 1's traffic problems date back to the late 1940's. No one today disputes the need for improvements; rather, disagreement centers on how best to achieve those improvements. Variations on two alternative proposals have dominated the list of solutions for forty years: (1) widen Highway 1 or (2) build a new route. The primary location identified for a new route was, and remains, Hatton Canyon, a pristine "wilderness" area east of the City of Carmel. Disagreement over these alternatives has resulted, unwittingly, in the exercise of a third option: no action.

The Highway 1 debate has been both public and passionate. The 10,000-page administrative record is replete with evidence of the detailed and emotional attention this issue has received. Further complicating the process, several localities, agencies and environmental groups involved have reversed their positions on the issue over time. Many who once supported the Hatton Canyon proposal now vigorously oppose it. They argue that the proposal will destroy Hatton Canyon's unique ecosystem while only saving motorists a few minutes of driving time at peak hours. Not surprisingly proponents of the Hatton Canyon proposal dismiss this as hyperbole, and note instead that the Hatton Canyon project will ameliorate traffic congestion, accident rates and air quality, while maintaining the rural and scenic character of Highway 1.

In 1984, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration began serving jointly as the "lead agencies" on the project. In 1986 they published a combined Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., and the California Environmental Quality Act, Cal.Pub.Res.Code § 21000 et seq. 2 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report's stated purpose was to: "improve the capacity of Highway 1 and reduce crossing and turning conflicts associated with several local streets and private driveways." 11 SAR 3121. Several alternatives--primarily variations on the Hatton Canyon and Highway 1 proposals--were analyzed. 11 SAR 3129-52.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report generated numerous comments from citizens, federal and state agencies, and environmental groups, among others. The Hatton Canyon Coalition, a plaintiff here, submitted a report prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates, an engineering firm, and Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, an architecture/planning firm (Smith Report), which recommended converting Highway 1 into a four-lane highway with two major interchanges. 24 SAR 7389-87.

In 1991, the Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans issued their Final Environmental Impact Statement/Report. The report/statement addressed many of the comments submitted in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report and generally provided a more focused analysis. The Final Environmental Impact Statement/Report's "Purpose and Need" section, for example, defined more precisely the desired Level of Service, an industry traffic category, setting Level of Service C as a project goal. 24 SAR 7648. Level of Service C refers to a category of "traffic service," which describes traffic flow. Traffic conditions are ranked between Level of Service A ("free flow, with low volumes and high speeds") and Level of Service F ("forced flow operation at low speeds, where volumes are below capacity"). 3

The Environmental Impact Statement/Report recommended the adoption of Alternative 1C Modified, the Hatton Canyon realignment. This proposal includes a new 57-foot bridge over the Carmel River, two new interchanges and the widening of an intersecting road. 24 SAR 7633. The estimated cost for this proposal was approximately $33.5 million. 24 SAR 7662.

Despite criticism concerning the accuracy of the Environmental Impact Statement/Report, including comments from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Federal Highway Administration certified the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Report in November, 1991 by issuing its Record of Decision. 27 SAR 8594-8608. Caltrans followed suit in December, 1991, issuing its Notice of Determination, certifying the Environmental Impact Statement/Report and adopting the findings and statement of overriding considerations required by the California Environmental Quality Act. 27 SAR 8654-55. The California Transportation Commission approved the Hatton Canyon project in November, 28 SAR 9049, and filed a Notice of Determination in December, 1991, 28 SAR 9073. The Federal Highway Administration had previously issued a "Wetlands Only Practicable Alternative Finding," 25 SAR 7981-84, and a "Floodplain Only Practicable Alternative Finding," 25 SAR 7985-88, as required by Executive Orders 11990 and 11988 respectively.

In early 1992, plaintiffs City of Carmel, Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District, Hatton Canyon Coalition and Sierra Club (collectively Carmel) filed this action against the Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans, among others, contending that the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Report violated the National Environmental Policy Act, California Environmental Quality Act and Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. 4 Carmel sought declaratory, injunctive and mandatory relief, as well as costs and attorney's fees pursuant to Cal.Civ.P.Code § 1021.5 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on May 16, 1994. Carmel filed this timely appeal.

II

We review de novo the district court's determination that the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Report satisfied the National Environmental Policy Act, Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Marsh, 52 F.3d 1485, 1488 (9th Cir.1995), and the California Environmental Quality Act, see San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus, 42 Cal.App.4th 608, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 494, 500 (1996). We also review de novo the district court's determination that the Federal Highway Administration satisfied Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. See United States v. Washington, 969 F.2d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir.1992).

III

Carmel alleges that five parts of the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Report violate both the National Environmental Policy Act and California Environmental Quality Act: (A) the wetlands discussion, (B) the Monterey pine discussion, (C) the consideration of reasonable alternatives, (D) the cumulative impacts analysis, and (E) the growth-inducing effects analysis.

We consider Carmel's National Environmental Policy Act and California Environmental Quality Act challenges independently....

To continue reading

Request your trial
252 cases
  • Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. Bureau of Land Mgmt.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Alaska
    • August 18, 2021
    ...Dist. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior , 376 F.3d 853, 868 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. U.S. Dep't of Transp. , 123 F.3d 1142, 1155 (9th Cir. 1997) ); see also Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., Medford Dist. , 914 F.2d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 1990) ("Nor must an a......
  • Heartwood, Inc. v. Agpaoa, Civil Action No. 07-114-KSF.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Kentucky
    • April 27, 2009
    ...... City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. United States Dep't of ......
  • SIERRA CLUB NORTH STAR CHAPTER v. LaHood, Civil No. 07-2593 (MJD/SRN).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • March 11, 2010
    ......Surface Transp. Bd., 345 F.3d 520, 533 (8th Cir. 2003) ..., which begins at the northern limits of the City of Stillwater and stretches south to Prescott, ... give the issue meaningful consideration." Dept. of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 764, ... 1207 (10th Cir.2003); City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1162-63 ......
  • Backcountry Against Dumps v. Chu, Case No.: 12cv3062 L (JLB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • September 29, 2015
    ......, Washington, DC, Rickey Doyle Turner, Jr., US Department of Justice, Denver, CO, for ...2014) ; City of Sausalito v. O'Neill , 386 F.3d 1186, ...Surface Transp. Bd. 705 F.3d 1073, 1087 (9th Cir. 2013). The ...U.S. Dept. of Transp. , 123 F.3d 1142, 1155 (9th Cir. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • NEPA's Trajectory: Our Waning Environmental Charter From Nixon to Trump?
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 50-5, May 2020
    • May 1, 2020
    ...20072 (10th Cir. 2006) (cannot “foreclose reasonable consideration of alternatives”); City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1155, 27 ELR 21428 (9th Cir. 1997) (“an agency cannot deine its objectives in unreasonably narrow terms”). 201. Our Money Our Transit v. F......
  • Practicable Alternatives for Wetlands Development Under the Clean Water Act
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 48-10, October 2018
    • October 1, 2018
    ...plant and that had previously been approved in a practicable alternatives analysis).93. NEPA L  L, supra note 8, §10:50.94. 123 F.3d 1142, 27 ELR 21428 (9th Cir. 1997). See also Van Abbema v. Fornell, 807 F.2d 633, 638, 17 ELR 20429 (7th Cir. 1986) (Corps had adequate basis fo......
  • Case summaries.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 40 No. 3, June 2010
    • June 22, 2010
    ...Friends of Se.'s Future v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 1998). (207) See City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1155 (9th Cir. (208) 803 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1986). (209) Id at 1021. (210) See Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 19......
  • Separation of powers and federal land management: enforcing the direction of the president under the Antiquities Act.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 40 No. 3, June 2010
    • June 22, 2010
    ...for Reconsideration, supra note 27, at 13 (No. CV 08-1472-PHX-MHM) (citing to Ninth Circuit cases such as City of Carmel-By-The-Sea, 123 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 1997), Sierra Club, 705 F.2d 1475 (9th Cir. 1983), Legal Aid Soc'y of Alameda County v. Brennan, 608 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir. 1979), and Ci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT