Opinion
C078973
08-11-2017
WOODLAKE NEIGHBORS CREATING TRANSPARENCY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO et al., Defendants and Respondents; SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, et al. Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 34201480001727CUWMGDS)
When an applicant submits a new development proposal that relates to a previously approved project, the lead agency must determine whether to treat the proposal as an application for a new project or as a modification of the previously approved project. This determination impacts the standards for environmental and judicial review.
Here, in 2005, defendants City of Sacramento and City of Sacramento City Council (collectively the City) approved the construction of an office building complex on two parcels of land in North Sacramento. The City of Sacramento Planning and Design Commission (the planning commission) certified a mitigated negative declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project, which included five buildings totaling approximately 60,000 square feet on the southern parcel and two totaling approximately 24,000 square feet on the northern parcel. Plans changed. Construction did not ensue and in 2013 the City approved construction of real parties in interest Signature Healthcare Services, LLC and Roseville Life Properties, LLC's (collectively Signature) approximately 70,000 square foot, 120-bed Expo Parkway Behavioral Healthcare Hospital Project (Hospital Project) on the southern parcel. The planning commission determined there was no need to prepare a supplemental environmental impact report and instead prepared an addendum to the mitigated negative declaration prepared in connection with the earlier project.
Plaintiff Woodlake Neighbors Creating Transparency (Woodlake) filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the City's actions, asserting the Hospital Project was a new project, not a modified project and the City violated CEQA when it relied upon an addendum to a mitigated negative declaration to approve the Hospital Project and failed to prepare a new independent environmental review. The trial court denied the petition. We shall affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The 2005 Project (The Original Project)
In March 2005 the planning commission adopted a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring plan and approved a tentative map and special permit for the Expo Parkway Offices Project (Original Project). The Original Project encompassed a southern parcel, the site at issue in the current case, and a northern parcel. It included five office buildings on the southern parcel and two office buildings on the northern parcel. The Original Project office space consisted of 84,734 square feet, of which approximately 60,000 square feet would have been on the southern parcel. The mitigated negative declaration for the Original Project analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the entire approximately 84,000 square foot project. The Original Project was zoned general commercial, labor intensive, parkway corridor zone. The City approved the Original Project but it was never completed.
Hospital Project
In 2013 Signature applied to the City to change the use of the southern portion by authorizing the construction and operation of a single-story hospital. Signature requested a rezoning of the southern parcel, a special permit to construct the hospital, and a design review of the hospital to be located in the North Sacramento Design Review District. The changes did not involve the northern parcel. The Hospital Project site consists of approximately 6.78 acres within the eight acres of the 2005 project site. Woodlake characterizes the hospital as a "prison like setting." The single-story acute care psychiatric inpatient hospital facility would contain approximately 120 beds within its 70,860 square feet. It will function as a transitional care facility for short-term psychiatric illnesses with typical visits of between three days and two weeks. The majority of patients are individuals voluntarily seeking medical care. The typical patient is suffering from depression, is not suicidal, and is often either a senior citizen or youth. The Hospital Project site is in a business park across the freeway from the Woodlake residential area.
Project conditions require the Hospital Project include cedar wood and earth tone masonry, a painted stucco parapet, clear glazing in crystal grey, metal panels in silver metallic, screened mechanical equipment, and aesthetically pleasing fencing. In addition, the record contains detailed renderings of the facility and the surrounding request, which are consistent with the City's design review requirements. The fence includes a short masonry wall topped by wrought iron. The fence does not run across the front of the building nor does a gate enclose the hospital. The taller portion of the fence, 10 feet in height, runs along the back and provides privacy for patients. Shorter fences, six and eight feet in height, appear in the front of the facility. The fences exist to "maintain patient privacy and to keep unauthorized individuals from entering the hospital." The current fence design is a revision from an originally proposed fence.
The facility is divided into units which utilize magnetic locking doors to keep patients secure. Signature will provide security services both on site and off site. The facility well be lighted and monitored consistent with project conditions.
The City evaluated the modifications to the Original Project under Public Resources Code section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164 to determine whether further environmental review was required. As part of the process, the City reviewed the initial study/mitigated negative declaration for the Original Project.
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Public Resources Code.
CEQA is augmented by the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines).)
The City considered the proposed changes to the Hospital Project and determined that the Hospital Project would not result in any significant new environmental impacts from those previously analyzed in the mitigated negative declaration for the Original Project. In addition, the City determined that the change in the project would result in a reduction in impacts in traffic and air quality due to a substantial reduction in traffic under the Hospital Project. The City concluded that the reduced intensity of the Hospital Project would lessen potentially significant impacts compared to the Original Project.
In addition, the City concluded none of the factors contained in section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15164 compelled the preparation of a supplemental environmental impact report or negative declaration. In June 2013 the City released an addendum to an adopted mitigated negative declaration. Later that month the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the Hospital Project, including the addendum.
Following the planning commission's recommendation, several neighborhood groups, including Woodlake, commented on the Hospital Project and raised environmental issues. The City and Signature held community meetings in August and October 2013.
The City released a revised addendum to an adopted mitigated negative declaration in December 2013. The revised addendum addressed the concerns of neighbors and community groups, analyzed the additional issues raised, and explained that an addendum was appropriate since the changes in the Hospital Project did not result in any significant environmental impacts.
Following a hearing, the city council adopted the revised addendum and the mitigation monitoring plan for the Hospital Project. The council also adopted a resolution approving the Hospital Project and an ordinance rezoning the 6.78 acres from the general commercial, labor intensive, parkway corridor zone to the hospital parkway corridor zone.
Petition for Writ of Mandate
Woodlake filed a petition for writ of mandate, arguing the City violated CEQA by treating the Hospital Project as a modification to the original 2005 project and preparing an addendum to the mitigated negative declaration. Woodlake contended the City's use of an addendum was improper because the proposed changes to the 2005 project are so substantial that the hospital proposal must be treated as a new project under CEQA. As a new project, CEQA would require that the City prepare a new environmental analysis and could not rely upon an addendum to the mitigated negative declaration for the original 2005 project.
The trial court held a hearing on the petition. Following the hearing, the trial court denied the petition. The court reviewed the City's decision under the substantial evidence test and found "substantial evidence in the record supports the City's determination that the hospital proposal is a modification to the overall Expo Parkway Office Project, and not an entirely new project." The court noted the similarities: the application involved the same parcels of land; it affected only the southern parcel; substituted one type of commercial use for another; did not significantly change the density of use; only moderately increased the size of the project; and City staff consistently treated the application as a modification.
The court noted it was not empowered to exercise its independent judgment on the weight of evidence. The court presumed the findings were correct and deferred to the City's discretion if the evidence is conflicting or if reasonable people might differ on the inferences to be drawn from the evidence. In addition, the court must resolve all evidentiary conflicts and indulge in all reasonable inferences in favor of the agency's determination. "The court may reverse the City's determination only if, based on the evidence before it, a reasonable person could not have reached the same determination. If reasonable minds may differ, this will fortify the conclusion that there was no abuse of discretion."
The court concluded: "The court is persuaded that a reasonable person could conclude that, despite the differences, the hospital application is a proposed modification to the same office project analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Thus the City did not abuse its discretion by analyzing the application under § 21166."
Moreover, even if the City had abused its discretion, Woodlake had failed to show that the City's actions were prejudicial. The court noted the City's procedures concerning the revised addendum ensured meaningful public review and comment. "Petitioner has failed to show that the City, Petitioner, or anyone else was deprived of information necessary to informed decision-making and informed public participation." Woodlake filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Woodlake asks us to review the City's determination that further environmental analysis of the Hospital Project was not required under CEQA.
Standard of Review
CEQA requires local agencies to prepare and certify the completion of an environmental impact report (EIR) on any project that they intend to carry out or approve which may have a significant effect on the environment. (§ 21151, subd. (a).) CEQA requires an agency to prepare an EIR whenever "substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a proposed project 'may have a significant effect on the environment.' [Citations.]" (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123.) If there is substantial evidence of such an effect, contrary evidence is not adequate to avoid an EIR. (Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1316 (County of Sonoma).) The fair argument standard creates a low threshold for requiring an EIR, reflecting the legislative preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review. (Latinos Unidos de Napa v. City of Napa (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 192, 200 (Latinos Unidos).)
Subsequently, once an agency prepares an EIR, CEQA prohibits the agency from requiring further EIR's "unless one or more of the following events occurs: [¶] (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report. [¶] (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report. [¶] (c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available." (§ 21166.)
We review the City's determinations "for compliance with CEQA, we ask whether the agency has prejudicially abused its discretion; such an abuse is established 'if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.' (§ 21168.5.) [Fn. omitted.] In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, we review the agency's action, not the trial court's decision. '[I]n that sense appellate judicial review under CEQA is de novo.' [Citation.]" (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 214-215 (Center for Biological Diversity).) We determine de novo whether the agency has followed the proper procedures, and we review the agency's substantive factual conclusions for substantial evidence. (Id. at p. 215.) In reviewing the agency's action we many not interpret CEQA or its guidelines "in a manner which imposes procedural or substantive requirements beyond those explicitly stated." (§ 21083.1)
In reviewing an agency's decision not to prepare an EIR in the first instance under section 21151, we "must set aside the decision if the administrative record contains substantial evidence that a proposed project might have a significant environmental impact; in such a case, the agency has not proceeded as required by law." (County of Sonoma, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 1317.) We uphold an agency's decision not to prepare an EIR in the first instance only when there is not "credible evidence to the contrary." (Id. at p. 1318.)
However, when reviewing an agency's decision not to prepare a further EIR under section 21166, we apply a more deferential standard. We uphold the decision if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Moss v. County of Humboldt (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1058 (Moss).) The party challenging the agency's decision under section 21166 bears the burden of demonstrating the agency's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and is improper. (Latinos Unidos, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 206.) We defer to the agency as the trier of fact and indulge in all reasonable inferences to support the agency's findings and we resolve conflicts in the evidence in favor of the agency's decision. (Mani Brothers Real Estate Group v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1397.)
Previously courts were divided over the appropriate level of review to be applied to an agency's determination as to whether section 21151, review in the first instance, or section 21166, subsequent review, applies to a particular project. (Moss, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 1051.) However, the Supreme Court recently settled the issue in Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937 (San Mateo).
The Supreme Court held the substantial evidence standard applies. The court observed that a decision to proceed under CEQA's subsequent review provisions rests on the determination, whether implicit or explicit, that the original environmental document retains some informational value. (San Mateo, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 951.) Therefore, the question of whether an initial environmental document remains relevant is a predominantly factual question and a question for the agency to answer in the first instance. In doing so, the agency draws on its particular expertise. The court's task on review is to decide whether the agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence, not to weigh conflicting evidence and determine who has the better argument. (Id. at pp. 952-953)
Given this standard, the Supreme Court observed, "occasions when a court finds no substantial evidence to support an agency's decision to proceed under CEQA's subsequent review provisions will be rare, and rightly so; 'a court should tread with extraordinary care' before reversing an agency's determination, whether implicit or explicit, that its initial environmental document retains some relevance to the decision making process. [Citation.]" (San Mateo, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 953.)
Analysis
The trial court carefully considered the record and denied the petition based on the substantial evidence standard of review. We agree with the trial court's assessment of the record that substantial evidence supports the City's determination.
Much of Woodlake's briefing focuses on whether the City's decision is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard or is a questions of fact subject to our independent review. Woodlake argues the latter applies. However, San Mateo, supra, 1 Cal.5th 937 settled this issue to the contrary.
Substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon fact, and expert opinion supported by the facts. (§ 21080, subd. (e)(1); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15384.) In considering the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or determine who has the better argument. (Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at pp. 941-942.)
This deferential standard is satisfied if the record contains relevant evidence that a reasonable court can accept as sufficient to support the agency's conclusion. We presume the agency's finding is correct, and resolve any evidentiary conflicts and indulge all reasonable inferences in favor of the agency's determination. (Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at pp. 941-942.) We do not set aside an agency's decision on the ground that an opposite conclusion would have been equally or more reasonable. We reverse only if, based on the evidence, a reasonable person could not have reached that decision. (Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal.4th 936, 944; Donley v. Davi (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 447, 456.)
The City reasonably relied on the evidence before it to conclude that the proposed changes to the project from office use to hospital use were changes to the previously reviewed and approved Original Project and did not constitute a new project. After the Hospital Project was proposed, the City evaluated the modifications to the Original Project under section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164 to determine whether further environmental review was required. The City reviewed the mitigated negative declaration for the Original Project, considered the proposed changes, and determined the Hospital Project would not result in significant new environmental impacts and would actually result in a reduction in impacts related to traffic and air quality due to a reduction in traffic. The City concluded the reduced intensity of the Hospital Project would lessen significant impacts as compared to the Original Project.
As the trial court noted, the Hospital Project involved the same parcels of land and affected only the southern parcel. The Hospital Project substituted one commercial use for another and did not significantly alter the proposed intensity of use. Moreover, the Hospital Project only increased the overall size of the project from approximately 84,000 to approximately 94,000 square feet.
We agree with the trial court that a reasonable person could conclude that, despite the differences, the Hospital Project is a modification of the Original Project and the City did not abuse its discretion in analyzing it under section 21166.
We also note Woodlake bears the burden to show an absence of substantial evidence supporting City's decision not to prepare a further EIR. (Latinos Unidos, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 206.) Woodlake fails to meet this burden. Instead, Woodlake provides only a cursory substantial evidence argument: "Even using the substantial evidence test . . . substantial evidence supports the determination that the new Project does not constitute mere technical changes or additions to the previously approved project, but is an entirely new project." Woodlake also asserts: "The creation of a secure psychiatric 120-bed hospital goes far beyond mere technical changes to an office park. As such, substantial evidence does not support the City's determination that the 2013 Project is a mere modification of the 2005 Project." We find Woodlake has failed to establish that the City's decision was not supported by substantial evidence.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The City and Signature shall recover costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278 (a)(1) & (2).)
RAYE, P. J. We concur: MAURO, J. HOCH, J.