Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council
Decision Date | 30 April 1991 |
Citation | 229 Cal.App.3d 1011,280 Cal.Rptr. 478 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | SACRAMENTO OLD CITY ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY COUNCIL OF SACRAMENTO, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. C007769. |
Law Offices of Kathryn Burkett Dickson, Kathryn Burkett Dickson, Oakland, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Evelyn M. Matteucci, Deputy City Atty., Sacramento, for defendant and respondent.
*
Plaintiffs Sacramento Old City Association, Elaine Hamby, and Susan Steinsapir ("SOCA") appeal from the denial by the Sacramento Superior Court of a writ of mandamus sought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). In their writ petition, SOCA sought to set aside the decision of defendant, City Council of Sacramento ("the City") to expand the downtown Sacramento Convention Center complex ("the center") and to construct an office tower at 1325 J Street ("the office tower"). Plaintiffs also sought an injunction against the future demolition of the Merrium Apartments until the City prepares an adequate environmental impact report ("EIR") on the project. On appeal, plaintiffs argue the EIR approved by the City is inadequate under CEQA. Plaintiffs contend the EIR is deficient because: (1) the EIR fails to adequately address mitigation of parking and traffic impacts; (2) the EIR contains insufficient findings concerning parking and the destruction of the Merrium Apartments. 1
We find the record supports the City's certification of the community center expansion. Therefore, we shall affirm the judgment.
In 1987, the City proposed an expansion of its existing Community Convention Center, located in downtown Sacramento. After considering various studies, the City determined the existing center was unable to attract and accommodate its full potential of convention-related events. This failure was partially based on size constraints of the existing center.
The City also sought, by enlarging the existing center, to further its goal of revitalization of downtown Sacramento. As part of this downtown revitalization, the City proposed the development and support of an entertainment/hotel district in downtown Sacramento, expanding outward from the existing center. In a report, the City noted, The City began formal consideration of expansion of the center.
Subsequently, the City's Planning and Development Department received applications from several developers for special permits to allow construction of high-rise office towers within a block of the center. The City, citing the geographic proximity of the office towers to the center and the resulting inter-related environmental issues, decided to prepare a single EIR, covering the proposed office towers and the expansion of the center. 2
The City commissioned a marketing analysis to provide space planning requirements for the proposed center expansion. This analysis recommended an additional 140,000 gross square feet of exhibit, meeting and ballroom space and additional loading dock facilities in order to realize the center's full market potential. The analysis proposed no specific design for the expansion.
The City considered five design alternatives for the proposed expansion: north (175,000 additional square footage); east (130,000 additional square footage); west (135,000 additional square footage); a SOCA alternative (210,000 additional square footage); and a no-project alternative.
The City prepared and made available a draft EIR. In the draft EIR each of the five proposed alternatives to the center expansion and each of the three proposed office towers were evaluated in 14 subject areas: land use; historic preservation and cultural resources; population; employment; housing; visual quality; traffic circulation and parking; noise; air quality; microclimate; public services; fiscal impacts; geology and soils; and biotic resources. Under each subject area the draft EIR analyzed any potential impacts and listed potential mitigation measures. The draft EIR also considered the cumulative impacts of the various proposed center expansion alternatives when combined with one or more of the office towers.
Several public hearings were held on the draft EIR. In addition, written comments were submitted to the City, and, ultimately incorporated into the final EIR. At the public meetings numerous questions were raised regarding the potential impact of traffic and parking on downtown Sacramento. The City was also questioned regarding the lack of specific mitigation measures to alleviate the impact of parking. The City responded that it was too soon in the design process of the center to make specific recommendations.
Following the meetings, on October 4, 1988, the City certified the EIR as complete and in compliance with CEQA. The City also adopted a motion of intent to select the east alternative to the proposed center expansion (including the office tower). The east alternative necessitated the removal or destruction of the Merrium Apartments, a priority structure on Sacramento's Official Register of Historic Properties. The City held a hearing on the feasibility of retaining the Merrium Apartments. The City determined that, in order to achieve the contiguous square footage required for the needed expansion of the center's exhibit hall, the Merrium could not remain in its present location. The City adopted a requirement of replacement housing as a condition of approval of the expansion of the center.
On October 25, 1988, by a five to four vote, the City certified the EIR and formally approved the east alternative. The City also adopted Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
In its findings the City found that, should the relocation of the Merrium prove to be infeasible, the adverse impact of the loss of the Merrium was overridden by the benefits of the expansion of the project. In addition, the findings required the City to explore the possibility of relocating the Merrium. However, a feasibility study commissioned by the City concluded moving the Merrium was not feasible because of the weight, width and depth of the structure. Subsequently, the City issued a finding stating moving the Merrium was not feasible, and reaffirming its statement of overriding considerations for the loss of the Merrium.
Plaintiffs petitioned for a writ of mandamus in Sacramento Superior Court, to which City and Benvenuti, developer of the office tower, filed an opposition. Following a two-day bench trial, the court denied the writ. The court's minute order states: 3
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, following the entry of judgment. 4
I. Compliance with CEQA
Plaintiffs' appeal attacks the validity and sufficiency of the EIR with respect to its treatment of mitigation of impacts and analysis of cumulative impacts. The impacts plaintiffs focus on are the problems associated with parking and traffic.
When plaintiffs challenge CEQA decisions, reviewing courts generally will defer to the agency's substantive judgments while requiring strict compliance with procedures required by law. Courts must not overturn an agency's discretionary decisions and substitute their own opinions as to what constitutes wise public policy. (El Dorado Union High School Dist. v. City of Placerville (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 123, 130, 192 Cal.Rptr. 480.) "The court does not pass upon the correctness of the EIR's environmental conclusions, but only upon its sufficiency as an informative document." (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 189, 139 Cal.Rptr. 396.)
Two CEQA provisions, Public Resources Code sections 21168 and 21168.5 govern the standard of review applied by courts in CEQA actions. The Supreme Court in Laurel Heights noted the standard of review under both sections is essentially the same: "[W]hether substantial evidence supports the agency's determination." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392, at fn. 5, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278, citation omitted.) The Supreme Court went on to state: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City of S.F.
...policy issues between a public agency that approves a project and those who oppose it. (E.g., Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1018, 280 Cal.Rptr. 478 [courts "must not overturn an agency's discretionary decisions and substitute their own opinions as to ......
-
League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer
...evidence supports the approving agency's conclusion that the measure will be effective. ( Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1027, 280 Cal.Rptr. 478.) However, we will not defer to the agency's determination where the measure's efficacy is not apparent and......
-
Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano
...undermined. An accurate description of the proposed project is "the heart of the EIR process." (Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1023, 280 Cal.Rptr. 478.) "An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential enviro......
-
Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus
...Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 732, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 704; Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1023, 280 Cal.Rptr. 478.) Respondents assert that the EIR in the present case is both a "program EIR" for the County's adoption of......
-
Save Cuyama Valley v. County Of Santa Barbara: JMBM Scores Significant Victory In CEQA Ruling On Significance Thresholds And Mitigation Measures
...Raptor Rescue Ctr. v. County of Merced, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at 671; see also Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1029 ("the agency can commit itself to eventually devising measures that will satisfy specific performance criteria articulated at the time o......
-
Addressing the Problem: The Judicial Branches
...as evidence that signiicant impacts will in fact be mitigated.’. . . [Citation.]” ( Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal. App. 3d 1011, 1028-1029 (SOCA).) In summary, for kinds of impacts for which mitigation is known to be feasible, the EIR may give the lead agency a ch......
-
California Modernizes Transportation Impacts Analysis Under Ceqa: Senate Bill 743 (steinberg, 2013)
...level of service standards. (See former CEQA Guidelines, App. G. § XV; see also, Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal. App. 3d 1011, 1033 (addressing claims of an EIR's inadequacy related to level of service analysis).)The Natural Resources Agency updated the sample chec......
-
Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15126.4 Consideration and Discussion of Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize Significant Effects
...v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112; Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council of Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & Co. of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656; Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. County......