Citizens for a Responsible Caltrans Decision v. Dep't of Transp.
Decision Date | 24 March 2020 |
Docket Number | D074374 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | CITIZENS FOR A RESPONSIBLE CALTRANS DECISION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant and Respondent. |
Chatten-Brown, Carstens & Minteer; Jan Chatten-Brown, Santa Monica, and Joshua Chatten-Brown for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Jeanne Scherer, Chief Counsel, Jeffrey B. Benowitz, Deputy Chief Counsel and Glenn B. Mueller, Assistant Chief Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent.
In 2017, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) released a final environmental impact report (FEIR) for the construction of two freeway interchange ramps connecting Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 56 (SR 56) (the Project). The FEIR stated: "After the [FEIR] is circulated, if Caltrans decides to approve the [P]roject, a Notice of Determination (NOD) will be published in compliance with CEQA by Caltrans, as well as[ ] by the California Coastal Commission (CCC), and Caltrans will publish a Record of Decision (ROD) in compliance with NEPA from Caltrans/FHWA." However, before the public comment period for the FEIR commenced and without issuing a notice of determination (NOD), Caltrans approved the Project a few days later and then filed a notice of exemption (NOE) two weeks later. The NOE stated that the Project was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ( Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. ) pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 103,1 which was enacted as of January 1, 2012. Citizens for a Responsible Caltrans Decision (CRCD) did not become aware of the NOE filing until after the 35-day statute of limitations period for challenging the NOE had run.
CRCD filed a petition for writ of mandate and declaratory relief alleging, inter alia, that Caltrans erroneously claimed the Project is exempt from CEQA under section 103 and that Caltrans is equitably estopped from relying on the 35-day statute of limitations for challenging notices of exemption. Caltrans demurred to the petition on the grounds that the causes of action were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and that the Project is exempt from CEQA under section 103. CRCD opposed the demurrer, arguing that: (1) the petition alleged facts regarding Caltrans's statements and conduct showing that Caltrans is equitably estopped from relying on the 35-day statute of limitations; and (2) section 103's CEQA exemption did not apply to Caltrans's approval of the Project. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal.
On appeal, CRCD contends the trial court erred by sustaining Caltrans's demurrer to the petition because: (1) section 103 does not exempt Caltrans from complying with CEQA in its approval of the Project; and (2) the petition alleged facts showing equitable estoppel applies to preclude Caltrans from raising the 35-day statute of limitations. As explained post , we agree that the court erred by sustaining Caltrans's demurrer and therefore reverse the judgment of dismissal.
The North Coastal Corridor (NCC) project includes multiple proposed projects by Caltrans and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) to improve vehicle and railroad transportation in the 27-mile corridor from La Jolla to Oceanside. One of the NCC projects is the Project, which involves the construction of two freeway interchange ramps connecting I-5 and SR 56.
In 2005, a notice of preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) for the Project was filed by Caltrans with the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR). Effective as of January 1, 2012, section 103 was enacted, providing for, inter alia, integrated regulatory review by the CCC of a public works plan (PWP) for the NCC projects, rather than a project-by-project approval approach. ( § 103, subd. (a)(4).) In April 2012, Caltrans circulated a draft environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (DEIR) for public review and comment. The DEIR stated: "Caltrans is the lead agency under CEQA." The DEIR further stated:
(Italics added.)
In October 2013, Caltrans issued an FEIR/environmental impact statement for its proposed NCC widening improvements to I-5 (i.e., construction of four express lanes), stating: "CA SB 468 [ § 103 ] is not intended to eliminate project-specific [CEQA ] or [NEPA ] reviews ; rather, it provides for integrated regulatory review by the [CCC]." (Italics added.) It noted that the I-5 NCC widening project and the Project (i.e., the I-5/SR 56 interchange project) "were ... independently evaluated under CEQA and NEPA."
In June 2014, Caltrans and SANDAG issued the PWP for the NCC project.2 In August 2014, the CCC approved the PWP. The PWP set forth "a blueprint for implementing a $6-billion 40-year program of rail, highway, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and coastal resource improvements that span 27 miles of the Northern San Diego County coastline from La Jolla to Oceanside. In particular, the PWP provided for improvements to I-5 through the addition of two express lanes in each direction. The PWP also discussed alternatives for improvements to the I-5/SR 56 interchange to provide better connectivity. The PWP stated:
Importantly, the PWP added the following footnote to the above discussion of PWP's:
"The [CCC ] PWP review and approval process is not intended to supplant the review processes required by [CEQA ], [NEPA] or other regulatory schemes; compliance with the CEQA , NEPA and/or other regulatory schemes are addressed at the project level ...." (Italics added.)
Regarding the Project, the PWP stated:
The PWP further provided that when Caltrans and SANDAG submit an NOID for a specific development project, they must attach a project report for that specific project. A project report must include, inter alia, "[e ]nvironmental documentation for the proposed development prepared pursuant to CEQA and/or NEPA," as well as findings that "[t ]he proposed development has been reviewed in compliance with CEQA and/or NEPA, and all conditions and/or mitigation measures identified in those CEQA and/or NEPA documents have been incorporated as part of the proposed development." (Italics added.)
On June 26, 2017, Caltrans, as lead agency, released the FEIR for the Project. The State Clearinghouse assigned to the FEIR the identifying number, "2005051061." The FEIR stated: "After the [FEIR ] is circulated, if Caltrans decides to approve the [P ]roject, a Notice of Determination (NOD) will be published in compliance with CEQA by Caltrans , as well as[ ] by the [CCC], and Caltrans will publish a Record of Decision (ROD) in compliance with NEPA from Caltrans/FHWA." (Italics added.) However, the FEIR also included the following (apparently inconsistent) language:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Organizacion Comunidad De Alviso v. City of San Jose
...notice to all potential litigants of the correct parties to name in a CEQA action. Citizens for a Responsible Caltrans Decision v. Department of Transportation (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1103, 260 Cal.Rptr.3d 306, cited by plaintiff, is factually distinguishable. In that case a state agency prom......
-
Beverly v. Riverside Cnty. Pub. Adm'r
...of a cause of action and will be disregarded. (Citizens for a Responsible Caltrans Decision v. Department of Transportation (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1103, 1116 [On appeal following the sustaining of a demurrer, the Court of Appeal "must disregard allegations that are contrary to law . . . ."].......
-
Laboratories v. Cnty. of San Diego
...to occur and then plead in defense the delay occasioned by his own conduct.' " (Citizens for a Responsible Caltrans Decision v. Department of Transportation (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1103, 1128.) " '[C]onduct onbehalf of a public agency, which would induce a reasonably prudent person to avoid s......
-
Oakes v. Progressive Transp. Servs., Inc.
...question involves issues of statutory construction, which we review de novo. ( Citizens for a Responsible Caltrans Decision v. Department of Transportation (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1103, 1120, 260 Cal.Rptr.3d 306.)" ‘A fundamental rule of statutory construction is that a court should ascertain......