League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer

• Decision Date: 14 February 2022
• Docket Number: C087102, C087117
• Citation: 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 218,75 Cal.App.5th 63
• Parties: LEAGUE TO SAVE LAKE TAHOE MOUNTAIN AREA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF PLACER et al., Defendants and Respondents; Sierra Pacific Industries et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. California Clean Energy Committee, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. County of Placer, Defendant and Respondent; Sierra Pacific Industries et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

75 Cal.App.5th 63

290 Cal.Rptr.3d 218

LEAGUE TO SAVE LAKE TAHOE MOUNTAIN AREA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.COUNTY OF PLACER et al., Defendants and Respondents;

Sierra Pacific Industries et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

California Clean Energy Committee, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.County of Placer, Defendant and Respondent;

Sierra Pacific Industries et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

C087102, C087117

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Filed February 14, 2022

Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Amy J. Bricker, Rachel B. Hooper, Laura D. Beaton, San Francisco; and Daniel P. Selmi, Los Angeles, for Plaintiffs and Appellants League to Save Lake Tahoe, Mountain Area Preservation Foundation, and Sierra Watch.

Law Office of Eugene Wilson and Eugene S. Wilson for Plaintiff and Appellant California Clean Energy Committee.

Clayton T. Cook, County Counsel for Defendants and Respondents County of Placer and Placer County Board of Supervisors.

Remy Moose Manley, Whitman F. Manley, Howard F. Wilkins III, and Nathan O. George, Sacramento, for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents Mountainside Partners, LLC, et al.

HULL, J.

These appeals concern Placer County's approval of a land use specific plan and rezoning to permit residential and commercial development and preserve forest land near Truckee and Lake Tahoe. The plaintiffs and appellants contend the County's environmental review of the project did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources, § 21000 et seq. (CEQA)) on numerous grounds, and the rezoning did not comply with the California Timberland Productivity Act of 1982 ( Gov. Code, § 51100 et seq. ). (Statutory section citations that follow are to the Public Resources Code unless otherwise stated.) The trial court rejected each of plaintiffs’ claims except one, a conclusion which the County and real parties in interest contest in their cross-appeal.

In C087102, the appellants contend:

(1) The environmental impact report (EIR) violated CEQA by not adequately describing the Lake Tahoe Basin's existing air and water quality, and, due to that failure and the County's decision not to utilize a vehicle-miles-traveled threshold of significance such as one adopted by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), the EIR violated CEQA by not adequately analyzing the impacts that project-generated traffic may have on the Basin's air quality and Lake Tahoe's water quality;

(2) The County violated CEQA by not recirculating the final EIR after it revised the draft EIR to include a new analysis of the project's impacts on climate and by mitigating the impact with an invalid mitigation measure; and

(3) The County violated the Timberland Productivity Act by not making certain findings before immediately rezoning the developable portion of the site.

In their cross-appeal, the County and real parties in interest claim the trial court erred when it found that the EIR did not adequately address the project's impacts on emergency evacuation plans and that substantial evidence did not support the EIR's conclusion that the impact would be less than significant.

In C087117, the appellant challenges the EIR's greenhouse gas emission mitigation measure. It also contends the EIR violated CEQA by:

(1) Not adequately describing the environmental setting of forest resources or analyzing the project's cumulative impacts on forest resources;

(2) Not addressing feasible measures to mitigate the project's impact on traffic;

(3) Not disclosing the significant impacts that will occur due to the project's contribution to widening state route 267; and

(4) Not discussing whether the project could increase its reliance on renewable energy sources to meet its energy demand.

We affirm both judgments in part.

In C087102, we affirm the judgment except to hold that the analysis of the project's impact on Lake Tahoe's water quality and greenhouse gas emission mitigation measure 12-2 do not comply with CEQA, and the EIR's analysis of the project's impact on evacuation plans is supported by substantial evidence.

In C087117, we affirm the judgment except to hold that greenhouse gas emission mitigation measure 12-2 does not comply with CEQA, substantial evidence does not support the County's finding that no additional feasible mitigation measures existed to mitigate the project's traffic impacts on state route 267, and the EIR's discussion of the project's energy impacts does not comply with CEQA.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Real party in interest Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) owns two large parcels of land in Martis Valley, an unincorporated area of Placer County between Truckee and Lake Tahoe. The parcels sit on opposite sides of state route 267, a highway that connects Truckee to Kings Beach on Lake Tahoe's north shore. The parcel generally west of route 267, known as the West Parcel, has 1,052 acres. It is southeast of the Northstar California resort. The East Parcel on the opposite side of route 267 has 6,376 acres. Both parcels are undeveloped coniferous forest. Both parcels border, and in small instances cross into, the Lake Tahoe Basin to their south.

The Martis Valley Community Plan designates the West Parcel as Forest. The parcel is zoned as Timberland Production Zone (TPZ). A TPZ, authorized by the Timberland Productivity Act, is a land use zoning that restricts the land's permitted uses to growing and harvesting timber and other compatible uses. In return, the County assesses the TPZ land for taxation purposes based on the land's restricted uses.

The Community Plan designates most of the East Parcel as Forest, and that portion of the property is also zoned TPZ. However, approximately 670 acres of the East Parcel are zoned for development of up to 1,360 dwelling units and 6.6 acres of commercial uses.

In 2006, appellants and conservation groups Sierra Watch and Mountain Area Preservation Foundation contacted SPI regarding conservation issues in Martis Valley. The East Parcel was identified as a priority for conservation, as preserving that parcel from development would connect an estimated 50,000 acres of open space east of route 267. Applicants and the conservation groups met numerous times from 2009 to 2013 to explore conservation opportunities. In 2013, they signed an agreement to aid the conservation and development of both parcels. The agreement was to facilitate transferring the East Parcel's development rights to portions of the West Parcel and preserving all of the East Parcel as permanent open space via purchase of a fee simple interest or conservation easement.

Although cooperation between the parties ended, SPI and its partners, real parties in interest Mountainside Partners LLC, and MVWP Development, LLC (collectively the applicants) applied to the County in 2013 for a specific plan they believed was consistent with the primary terms of the agreement. The proposed specific plan, the Martis Valley West Parcel Specific Plan, would amend the Martis Valley Community Plan and related zoning to (1) allow development of up to 760 residential units and 6.6 acres of commercial use on a 775-acre portion of the West Parcel and withdraw those lands from the TPZ zone; and (2) designate all of the East Parcel, including the 670 acres zoned for development under the existing community plan, as Forest and TPZ. Upon approval of the specific plan, applicants would sell the East Parcel for conservation purposes or place the land in a conservation easement in perpetuity.

The specific plan and its related zoning and other legislative approvals, and not any approvals of actual development, comprise the CEQA project before us. The immediate rezoning out of TPZ was also subject to the requirements and procedures of the Timberland Productivity Act. ( Gov. Code, § 51133.) The County issued a notice of preparation that it and TRPA would prepare a joint EIR/environmental impact statement (EIS) under CEQA and the National Environmental Protection Act. TRPA would participate because small portions of the two parcels lie within the Lake Tahoe Basin, the area of land subject to TRPA's land use regulatory authority.

In response to comments to the notice of preparation, applicants revised the proposed specific plan. In the revised plan, applicants removed the acreage within the Lake Tahoe Basin and TRPA's jurisdiction from the scope of the project. Applicants also reduced the land that could be developed on the West Parcel from 775 acres to 662 acres, but they stated they would develop the same number of dwelling units (760) and the same amount of commercial space (6.6 acres) as originally planned. The undeveloped portions of the West Parcel would remain Forest and TPZ. As a result of this change, TRPA would no longer be required to approve the project, and the County proceeded to prepare a program EIR as the sole lead agency.

The County released a draft EIR in October 2015 and a final EIR in May 2016. After two public hearings, the planning commission by a vote of five to two recommended the County deny the proposed specific plan.

After additional public hearings, the board of supervisors on October 11, 2016, certified the EIR and approved the specific plan by a vote of four to one. The approvals also included a statement of findings of fact and overriding considerations, a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan, the proposed rezonings, and a development agreement. The board of supervisors also found that the immediate rezoning of the West Parcel out of the TPZ was consistent with the purposes of the Timberland Productivity Act and was in the public interest.

Plaintiff and appellant League to Save Lake Tahoe, along with the Mountain Area Preservation Foundation and Sierra Watch (the parties refer to these appellants collectively as Sierra Watch) and the California Clean Energy Committee (the Committee) filed separate petitions for writ of mandate and complaints contending the County violated CEQA...