Saltonstall v. City of Sacramento
| Decision Date | 18 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | C077772 |
| Citation | 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 898,234 Cal.App.4th 549 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Adriana Gianturco SALTONSTALL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendant and Respondent; Sacramento Basketball Holdings, LLC, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
See 12 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Real Property, § 840 et seq.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Timothy M. Frawley, Judge. Affirmed.
The Smith Firm and Kelly T. Smith, Sacramento, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson, Oakland, Amrit S. Kulkarni, Julia L. Bond and Shaye Diveley for Defendant and Respondent.
Pioneer Law Group, Andrea A. Matarazzo, Jeffrey K. Dorso, Sacramento, and Jay M. Harris for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
This appeal involves a challenge under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21050 et seq.) to certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) and approval of a project to build a new entertainment and sports center (ESC) in downtown Sacramento. 1 The project represents a partnership between the City of Sacramento (City) and Sacramento Basketball Holdings LLC (Sacramento Basketball Holdings) to build a downtown arena at which the Sacramento Kings, a professional basketball team, will play. Planning, approval, and construction of the arena has proceeded apace because the National Basketball Association (NBA) has expressly reserved the right to acquire the Sacramento Kings and relocate the team to another city if a new arena in Sacramento does not open by 2017. To facilitate the timely opening of a new downtown arena, the Legislature modified several deadlines under CEQA by adding section 21168.6.6 to the Public Resources Code. Section 21168.6.6 also allows the City to exercise limited eminent domain powers to acquire property for the project before completion of its environmental review. Section 21168.6.6, however, does not substantively alter other CEQA requirements for environmental review of the project.
In a prior appeal, Adriana Saltonstall and 11 other petitioners argued section 21168.6.6 violates the constitutional separation of powers doctrine because the Legislature restricted the grounds on which the courts may issue a preliminary injunction to stay the downtown arena project.2( Saltonstall v. City of Sacramento (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 837, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 342 ( Saltonstall I ).) Saltonstall also argued the trial court erred by refusing to grant a preliminary injunction despite harm to the public and the environment due to demolition of part of the Downtown Plaza shopping mall and construction of the downtown arena in its place. ( Id. at p. 857, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 342.) We concluded section 21168.6.6 does not violate separation of powers and the trial court properly denied Saltonstall's request for a preliminary injunction. ( Id. at p. 858, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 342.)
In this appeal, Saltonstall contends (1) the City violated CEQA by committing itself to the downtown arena project before completing the EIR process, (2) the City's EIR failed to consider remodeling the current Sleep Train Arena as a feasible alternative to building a new downtown arena, (3) the EIR did not properly study the effects of the project on interstate traffic traveling on the nearby section of Interstate Highway 5(I–5), (4) the City did not account for large outdoor crowds expected to congregate outside the downtown arena during events, (5) the trial court erred in denying her Public Records Act request to the City to produce 62,000 e-mail communications with the NBA; and (6) the trial court erred in denying her motion to augment the administrative record with an e-mail between Assistant City Manager John Dangberg and a principal of Sacramento Basketball Holdings, Mark Friedman (the Dangberg–Friedman e-mail) and a 24–page report regarding forgiveness of a $7.5 million loan by the City to the Crocker Art Museum.
We conclude the City did not prematurely commit itself to approving the downtown arena project before completing its environmental review. Under CEQA, the City was allowed to engage in land acquisition for its preferred site before finishing its EIR. Moreover, section 21168.6.6 expressly allowed the City to exercise its eminent domain power to acquire the 600 block of K Street as the site of the arena before finishing its environmental review. The preliminary nonbinding term sheet between the City and Sacramento Basketball Holdings constituted an agreement to negotiate regarding the project and did not foreclose environmental review, mitigation, or even rejection of the project.
As to consideration of feasible alternatives, the City did not err by declining to study the option of remodeling the Sleep Train Arena. The City studied a “no project” alternative involving continued use of the Sleep Train Arena and an alternative that involved building a new arena next to the current arena in Natomas. Both the no project and new Natomas arena alternatives failed to meet most of the City's objectives for the project to revitalize its downtown area. Regardless of whether the Sleep Train Arena remodel alternative might have been environmentally superior to the project approved, the remodel alternative would have suffered the same problems of location that caused the City to reject the other Natomas-based alternatives.
We reject Saltonstall's argument that the EIR is defective for failure to study mainline interstate traffic on I–5 even though the City studied the timing and extent of traffic congestion on the freeway that will likely result due to the project. The City was not required to separately consider the effect of the project on motorists subject to the same traffic conditions simply because their trip origins and destinations might have been different than those of local commuters. The EIR and Sacramento City Council's statement of overriding considerations demonstrate thatthe decision-makers were informed of and understood the adverse consequences on I–5 traffic resulting from the downtown arena project. The EIR's traffic study of the project's effects on I–5 traffic was not deficient.
Saltonstall's contention regarding failure to study post-event crowd safety and potential for violence does not implicate CEQA. Saltonstall's argument focuses on a social issue for which no environmental effect is described. Mere speculation about possible crowd violence and its possible effect on the environment does not compel EIR review.
Saltonstall may not raise the issue of the 62,000 e-mail communications she requested from the City under the California Public Records Act (Public Records Act) (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.). Review of trial court orders on Public Records Act motions may be made only by writ petition, not by direct appeal. As to the Dangberg–Friedman e-mail and loan forgiveness report, we deem Saltonstall's argument forfeited for lack of any analysis of how these documents might meet the definition of documents to be included in the administrative record under the Public Resources Code.
Accordingly, we affirm (1) the judgment dismissing Saltonstall's challenge to the sufficiency of the City's EIR and approval of the downtown arena project, and (2) the trial court's order denying her motion to augment the administrative record.
Since 1988, the Sacramento Kings have been playing at the Sleep Train Arena (formerly named the Arco Arena). At the time of its opening, the Sleep Train Arena was the smallest arena in the NBA by square footage and the second smallest in terms of seating capacity. Studies and proposals to replace the Sleep Train Arena with another location in Sacramento have been ongoing since the late 1990s.
In 2012, the City developed a preliminary term sheet with the previous owners of the Sacramento Kings to build a multi-purpose facility near downtown Sacramento in a section called the “Railyards.” The parties were unable to reach an agreement, and the previous team owners broke off discussions with the City.
In January 2013, the previous owners entered into an agreement to sell the Sacramento Kings to an investor group in Seattle, Washington. The NBA announced it would address the issue of the Sacramento Kings' proposed sale and relocation at a meeting scheduled for April 2013. When news of the proposed sale became public, the City worked with members of the public to find a new, local investor group to acquire the team and ensure the team would remain in Sacramento. In February 2013, the city council authorized the city manager to engage in negotiations with prospective investor groups to prepare preliminary terms for city council consideration of a plan to keep the team in Sacramento.
On March 1, 2013, an investor group that became Sacramento Basketball Holdings presented a plan to the NBA to acquire the Sacramento Kings, construct a new downtown arena in partnership with the City, and keep the team in Sacramento on a long-term basis. On March 26, 2013, the city council approved a preliminary nonbinding term sheet for development of a new entertainment and sports center in downtown Sacramento at the site of the Downtown Plaza, a shopping mall with declining occupancy rates. The preliminary nonbinding term sheet listed issues for resolution that included the preferred location, financing, ownership, design, construction,operation, and occupancy for a new downtown arena.
The term sheet also included a disclaimer that the City had no obligation to build, finance, or approve the project until it completed its environmental review and secured all necessary permits for the project. The preliminary nonbinding term sheet further stated the City retained sole discretion to weigh the environmental consequences and to reject the project entirely.
In May 2013, the board of governors for the NBA approved the sale...
To continue reading
Request your trial