Napa Citizens for Honest Gov't v. Napa County Bd of Supervisors
| Decision Date | 03 August 2001 |
| Citation | 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 579,91 Cal.App.4th 342 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2001) NAPA CITIZENS FOR HONEST GOVERNMENT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. NAPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Defendant and Appellant. A089095 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE Filed |
Attorneys for: Napa Co. Board of Supervisors and County of Napa:Arthur F. Coon Christian M. Carrigan Miller, Starr & Regalia Napa Citizens for Honest Government et al.:J. William Yeates Mary U. Akens Law Office of J. William Yeates William D. Ross Barbara J. Higgins
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
On October 20, 1998, the Napa County Board of Supervisors (the County) adopted a resolution certifying a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (the "FSEIR") and adopting an updated specific plan (the "Updated Specific Plan") for the development of an unincorporated area surrounding the Napa County Airport. Two citizens' groups and the City of American Canyon, a city located within the County, responded to the County's actions by filing complaints and petitions for writ of mandate challenging the County's General Plan, the Updated Specific Plan and the certification of the FSEIR. (The challengers will be referred to, collectively, as "Petitioners.") The superior court granted demurrers to the causes of action challenging the General Plan, ruling that they were time-barred. It later entered judgment granting the petition for writ of mandate, ruling that the FSEIR was inadequate and that the Updated Specific Plan was invalid.
The County has filed an appeal from the judgment. Petitioners have filed a cross appeal from the order sustaining the demurrer to the causes of action challenging the County's General Plan.
We do not agree with every detail of the trial court's rulings, but we will find that the demurrers properly were granted, the FSEIR was inadequate and the Updated Specific Plan was invalid. We therefore will affirm the judgment, although without completely adopting the trial court's reasoning.
The Legislature has declared a policy "to protect California's land resource, to insure its preservation and use in ways which are economically and socially desirable in an attempt to improve the quality of life in California." (Gov. Code, 65030.) To further this policy, each of the state's counties is required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term, general plan for the physical development of that county. (Gov. Code, 65300.) The county may then, if it chooses, adopt one or more specific plans for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general plan. (Gov. Code, 65450.)
In 1986, in accordance with Government Code section 65450, the County adopted a specific plan (the 1986 Specific Plan) to develop the Airport Industrial Area (the Project or Project area). The Project area is made up of approximately 2,945 acres, including the Napa County Airport, immediately south of the city of Napa City. It is bordered by the area's main north-south transportation route, State Route 29. The area's main east-west transportation route, Highway 12, crosses State Route 29 and runs through the Project area to the Napa County Airport. In 1986, the area consisted mainly of flat grasslands, crossed by several creeks. It was used primarily for agricultural purposes such as grazing and growing forage crops. The 1986 Specific Plan contemplated developing the area to accommodate 1,923 acres of industrial development, including 1,354 acres designated Business/Industrial Park and 569 acres designated General Industrial.
The 1986 Specific Plan was a "project" within the purview of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. This meant, among other things, that the County was required to prepare and circulate an environmental impact report, or "EIR," and was required to hold public hearings prior to certifying the EIR and adopting the 1986 Specific Plan. (Pub. Resources Code, 21065, 21080, subd. (a), 21151.) An EIR was prepared. It identified a number of adverse environmental effects that would result from the adoption of the Project, identified various mitigation measures that might alleviate some or all of those effects, and made recommendations. The County adopted several of the proposed mitigation measures, incorporating them into the 1986 Specific Plan.
The County found, however, that no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives had been proposed that would fully mitigate the adverse effects of the Project on traffic-road access, hydrology-water quality, vegetation-wildlife, land use, visual, noise and air quality. The County nonetheless certified the EIR, finding that identified economic and social factors justified approval of the Project notwithstanding that the Project would have unmitigated adverse effects on the environment. The County thereafter approved the Project, and adopted the 1986 Specific Plan.
The County began to update the 1986 Specific Plan in 1994. As part of this process, the County caused a Draft Updated Specific Plan and a Draft Subsequent EIR to be prepared and circulated, and again conducted hearings, reviews and related proceedings. After receiving comments and criticisms, the County caused a Supplement to the Draft Subsequent EIR (the Supplement) to be prepared and circulated, and after receiving comments and criticisms to the Supplement, it caused an Addendum to the Draft Subsequent EIR (the Addendum) to be prepared. At the completion of these proceedings, the County, on October 20, 1998, adopted the Updated Specific Plan, and certified the FSEIR, which was comprised of the Draft Subsequent EIR as modified by the Supplement and the Addendum.
As in 1986, the County found that no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives had been proposed that would fully mitigate the adverse effects of the project. Indeed, the County concluded that a number of the measures approved or adopted as part of the 1986 Specific Plan were not feasible. The County nonetheless certified the FSEIR and adopted the Updated Specific Plan, deleting the mitigation measures adopted in 1986 but found infeasible in 1998. The County found that with the adoption of such mitigation measures as were feasible, the specified impacts would be reduced to a "less than significant" level, and/or that additional mitigation measures were infeasible and the benefits of the Updated Specific Plan sufficiently overrode and outweighed the significant impacts it would have on the environment.
On November, 19, 1998, Napa Citizens for Honest Government and North Bay Citizens for Responsible Transportation filed a complaint and petition for writ of mandate, challenging the FSEIR and Updated Specific Plan. American Canyon was permitted to intervene in the proceedings, and filed its own complaint and petition for writ of mandate challenging the FSEIR and Updated Specific Plan.
The County successfully demurred to both complaints and petitions insofar as they attacked the County's General Plan, on the basis such an attack was time-barred. The court, however, granted the petition for writ of mandate, and entered judgment in favor of Petitioners on their remaining claims, finding (1) that the Updated Specific Plan was inconsistent with the General Plan's Circulation Element; (2) that the FSEIR failed adequately to analyze identified traffic problems and failed to provide adequate mitigation measures for identified traffic and circulation impacts; (3) that the Updated Specific Plan was inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan's Housing Element; (4) that the FSEIR failed adequately to evaluate and mitigate the Updated Specific Plan's impact on housing; (5) that the FSEIR failed adequately to analyze and mitigate identified significant impacts as to wastewater treatment and water distribution; and (6) that the FSEIR failed to investigate and make findings as to the impact the Updated Specific Plan would have on Steelhead Trout.
Two interrelated bodies of law govern the County's actions. The first is the State's Planning and Zoning laws, Government Code section 65000 et seq., which, as mentioned above, are designed to protect California's land resource, mandate that a county such as Napa develop and adopt a general plan, and authorize counties to adopt specific plans.
The Planning and Zoning laws require each general plan to incorporate certain elements including, as relevant here, a land use element, a circulation element (which must be coordinated with the land use element), a housing element and a conservation element. (Gov. Code, 65302, subds. (b), (c) & (d).) " . . .' (Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural etc. County (hereafter FUTURE) v. Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1336 quoting from Corona-Norco Unified School Dist. v. City of Corona (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 985, 994.)
The Updated Specific Plan, therefore, is valid only to the extent that it is consistent with the County's General Plan; i.e., to the extent that it is compatible with the General Plan's objectives, policies, general land uses and programs.
The second body of law at issue is CEQA, a comprehensive scheme designed to provide long-term protection to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Napa Citizens v. Napa County Bd. of Sup'Rs
... 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 579 ... 91 Cal.App.4th 342 ... NAPA CITIZENS FOR HONEST GOVERNMENT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, ... NAPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Defendant and ... ...
-
Aids Healthcare Found. v. City of L. A.
... ... order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No ... 21STCP00049, Mitchell L. Beckloff, ... so." [Citations.]'" ( Napa Citizens for ... Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors ... (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 384.) To ... ...