Cal. Clean Energy Comm. v. City of Woodland

• Decision Date: 01 January 2014
• Docket Number: C072033
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: CALIFORNIA CLEAN ENERGY COMMITTEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF WOODLAND, Defendant and Appellant; Petrovich Development Company, LLC, et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

225 Cal.App.4th 173

170 Cal.Rptr.3d 488

CALIFORNIA CLEAN ENERGY COMMITTEE, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. CITY OF WOODLAND, Defendant and Appellant;Petrovich Development Company, LLC, et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

C072033

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Filed 2/28/2014

Certified for Partial Publication.^*

See 12 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Real Property, § 842.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Yolo County, Daniel P. Maguire, J. Reversed. (Super.Ct. No. CVPT112146)

Law Office of Eugene Wilson and Eugene S. Wilson for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Remy Moose Manley, Whitman F. Manley, Sabrina V. Teller, Sacramento, Amanda R. Berlin and Holly W. Roberson for Defendant and Appellant.

Herum Crabtree Suntag and Steven A. Herum, Stockton, for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

HOCH, J.

The City of Woodland (City) approved Gateway II—a project by Petrovich Development Company, LLC (Petrovich) to develop a 234–acre regional shopping center on undeveloped agricultural land located at the City's periphery. California Clean Energy Committee (CCEC), a California nonprofit organization, filed a petition for writ of mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21050 et seq.) to challenge the City's certification of its final environmental impact report (final EIR) and approval of the project.¹ The City opposed the petition, which was denied in its entirety by the trial court.

CCEC appeals, contending (1) the trial court erred in concluding Gateway II did not conflict with the City's general plan, (2) the City's mitigation measures are insufficient to ameliorate the urban decay that will be caused by Gateway II, (3) the City did not give meaningful consideration to feasible project alternatives such as the mixed-use alternative, and (4) the final EIR did not properly identify and analyze potentially significant energy impacts generated by Gateway II.

The City asserts claims regarding conflicts between Gateway II and the general plan are not cognizable because CCEC did not comply with the statute of limitations imposed by the planning and zoning law (Gov.Code, § 65000 et seq.). The City additionally asserts CCEC failed to present the CEQA issues in the trial court or during the administrative process. The City further argues it properly considered each of the other issues raised by CCEC but rejected them as it is allowed to do under CEQA. And, the City asserts it committed to implementing mitigation measures sufficient to ameliorate urban decay expected to result from Gateway II.

The City also cross-appeals, contending the trial court erroneously granted CCEC's motion to tax costs. Specifically, the City claims it should have received its costs for helping prepare the administrative record. CCEC responds that a public agency cannot recover costs when the CEQA petitioner has elected to prepare the record.

We conclude CCEC's petition in the trial court did not assert a cause of action arising under the planning and zoning law. Consequently, CCEC has not preserved the issue of whether the rezoning of the land for Gateway II conflicts with the City's general plan.²

On the merits, we conclude the City's mitigation measures for alleviating the anticipated urban decay in its downtown and at a local shopping mall are inadequate under CEQA. Although one of the five mitigation measures is likely to lessen the effects of urban decay, even the City recognizes it alone does not constitute sufficient mitigation. The remaining urban decay mitigation measures are too speculative, vague, or noncommittal to comply with CEQA. As to the City's consideration of project alternatives, we conclude the EIRs did not properly assess the merits of the mixed-use alternative. On the issue of energy impacts, we conclude CEQA required the City to assess transportation, construction, and operation energy impacts resulting from Gateway II. The City's reliance on the California Building Standards Code (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 24, part 6) (Building Code) and California Green Building Standards Code (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 24, part 11) (CALGreen) did not suffice to address issues of transportation, construction, and operation energy impacts.

Our conclusion that the judgment must be reversed obviates our need to consider the City's issue on cross-appeal, which depends on the City being the prevailing party on the CEQA claims.

BACKGROUND

The City's General Plan

The City adopted its general plan in December 2002. In it, the City announced it intended “[t]o revitalize the Downtown district as the heart of the city. [¶] With a stock of historic buildings that tie the community to its past, Downtown is the center of community activity and a primary source of Woodland's identity. The General Plan seeks to preserve Downtown's central location and its function as a center for community activities by continuing the City's revitalization efforts and considering the effects of other land use decisions on Downtown vitality.”

The Gateway II Project

The first phase of the development (Gateway I) was approved in 2006 and involved Petrovich's development of 49 acres of agricultural land for retail and commercial uses on the edge of the City—near the intersection of Interstate Highway 5 (I–5) and Yolo County Road 102. Gateway I was completed and began leasing when Petrovich submitted a plan to the City for development of the next phase of the project (Gateway II). In February 2007, Petrovich filed an application with the City to annex approximately 154 acres of farmland to the City and to rezone the acreage from “Agricultural” to “General Commercial.”

The Draft EIR

In October 2009, the City issued a notice of preparation that an EIR would be prepared for the proposed Gateway II project. A draft EIR was published in April 2010. The draft EIR described the scope of the project as a regional commercial center with approximately 808,000 square feet of retail space, 3 hotels with 100 rooms each, a 20,000 square foot sit-down restaurant, 3 fast food restaurants with a cumulative 30,500 square feet of space, an 80,000 square foot auto mall, and 100,000 square feet of office space.

The draft EIR studied Gateway II's anticipated impact on retail in surrounding areas. Based on “the super-regional retail center size of Woodland Gateway Phase I and Phase II,” the draft EIR expected the project would “include customers from Woodland, Davis, Dixon, North Natomas, Greenbriar Specific Plan area, Colusa County, and unincorporated portions of Yolo County (including UC Davis and Winters).” Because “the specific tenant mix is unknown,” the draft EIR “evaluate[d] the retail trade area's ability to support the overall amount of retail rather than specific classes of retail goods.”

The analysis divided its assessment of impacts into “two time periods based on projected market demand.” According to the draft EIR, “The phasing approach allows for the Project to minimize the potential for urban decay. [¶]—The first time period is based on estimated market demand in 2015. This phase includes the first 295,000 square feet of retail development and half of the auto mall (two dealerships). It is anticipated this first phase will be completed by 2015. [¶]—The second time period includes the cumulative project absorption through 2025. The second phase of development, anticipated to be completed no earlier than 2025, will include the remaining 545,000 square feet of retail development, 100,000 square feet of office, hotels, and remaining auto dealership site.”

URBAN DECAY

The draft EIR engaged in “an assessment of the potential for the Project to cause urban decay.” To this end, the draft EIR explained that “the project must be considered in connection with the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. For example, impacts related to the physical deterioration and urban decay of Downtown Woodland, East of Downtown, and East of I–5.” The draft EIR noted, “urban decay impacts are cumulative by nature.”

The draft EIR concluded Gateway II could threaten the economic health and physical integrity of the City's downtown in the near term: “Downtown Woodland ... could be directly vulnerable to a loss of sales and increased vacancies. While Project tenants will not compete directly with Downtown retailers, a lack of overall demand for additional retail may make it financially infeasible for public or private investors to make the needed capital improvements to support additional retail suited for Downtown. The development of [Gateway II] may hinder efforts to revitalize downtown in the short term. [¶] Over the long-term however, it is anticipated that downtown could benefit from the Project. As envisioned, the Project will accommodate auto dealers currently inhabiting key redevelopment sites in downtown. In addition, the Project has the potential to increase the number of shoppers to Woodland through increased capture of regional sales activity, providing downtown with the opportunity to capture a portion of these additional shoppers. Finally, the Project will generate additional General Fund revenues to support enhanced municipal service and potential investment in downtown.”

MIXED–USE ALTERNATIVE

In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIR also considered a mixed-use alternative, which “would include development of less acreage (approximately 60 percent or 93 acres) than the proposed project. The Mixed Use Alternative would still include an annexation of 154 acres from Yolo County to the City of Woodland. The 93 acres would be prezoned General Commercial (C–2) with a Planned Development Overlay to allow the mixed use nature of the alternative. The remaining acreage would be prezoned to a new zoning designation of Urban Reserve consistent with the General Plan. The southern and eastern portion of the property would remain in the existing condition, and would act as...