City General Plan EIR Not Required to Use Prospective Transportation Impacts Metric, Vehicle Miles Travelled

In Citizens for Positive Growth and Preservation v. City of Sacramento, (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609, the Third District Court of Appeal held that a city was not required to analyze transportation impacts using vehicle miles travelled as the metric because that metric was prospective and the relevant environmental document was certified before the metric was enforceable.

Background

In March 2015, the City of Sacramento (“City”) approved and adopted the 2035 General Plan and certified the environmental impact report (EIR) for the document, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. (CEQA). In part, the EIR evaluated transportation impacts via changes in level of service (LOS). Citizens for Positive Growth and Preservation (“Citizens”) sued the  City to set aside both approvals on the grounds that the introductory paragraph of the General Plan conflicted with state law because it was internally inconsistent, the EIR did not comply with CEQA, and the City did not recirculate the draft EIR after making “substantial changes”.

The trial court rejected all of Citizens’ claims and held in favor of the City. Citizens appealed.

Court of Appeal Holding

The Court of Appeal held that Citizens failed to show any element of the 2035 General Plan “imped[ed] or frustrate[d]” any other element in violation of state law or the General Plan Guidelines; therefore, the General Plan was internally consistent. Citizens also alleged that the General Plan, as written and as may be applied in the future, created a hierarchy of elements, allowing the City to prioritize certain City goals over others. The Court found such hypothetical arguments to be unripe and “decline[d] to presume the City intends to violate governing law.”

Then, the Court turned to Citizens’ allegations that the 2035 General Plan EIR was insufficient. Citizens alleged that the City was incorrect to use the LOS metric to evaluate transportation impacts when Public Resources Code section 21099 and CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, as currently written, provide the proper metric is vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The Court heard additional briefing on the issue and held the City could rely on LOS metrics. Section 21099 provides impacts measured in LOS are not significant impacts on the environment and Section 15064.3 provides, effective July 1, 2020, VMT is “generally…the most appropriate measure for transportation impacts.” Therefore, there is a gap before Section 15064.3 is effective where the City is at liberty to continue relying on LOS.

The Court of Appeal set out that the law that applies is “that which is current at the time of [its] judgement.”

Accordingly, the 2035 General Plan’s impacts on LOS…cannot constitute a significant environmental impact, as Citizens argues, rendering Citizens’ traffic impacts argument moot. Further, because CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 is prospective and does not presently require the City to use the criteria set forth therein, Citizens’ argument that the City failed to analyze the 2035 General Plan’s traffic impacts under the vehicle miles traveled criteria in the regulations fails as well.

In short, the City could rely on LOS metrics and find no transportation impacts as a result of the 2035 General Plan. The EIR was adequate in this regard.

Finally, the  Court of Appeal dismissed each of Citizen’s subsequent arguments on the adequacy of the EIR. Citizens failed to meet their burden to show that “significant new information” was added to the draft EIR; therefore, circulation was not required. Citizens failed to support their position that the greenhouse gas emission, air quality, and cyclist safety analyses were inadequate because Citizens did not present arguments or facts supported by evidence to support their position. Therefore, the EIR was not inadequate in those respects. Finally, Citizens was incorrect to claim that the City failed to adequately address the no project alternative. The Court found that the City was at liberty to reject the “no project” alternative where it was infeasible and generally resulted in greater impacts.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision and awarded costs of appeal to the City.

Key Take Away

Public agencies conducting CEQA review after July 1, 2020 should analyze traffic impacts from projects using the vehicle miles travelled metric.

Questions

If you have any questions regarding this Legal Alert, please contact the following attorneys from our office, or the attorney with whom you typically consult.

Mona Ebrahimi
mebrahimi@kmtg.com | 916.321.4597

Olivia Clark
oclark@kmtg.com | 916.321.4290