Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2016) · DecisionDepot
Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife
California Court of Appeal Jul 11, 2016 No. B245131Published
Before: Turner, Kriegler, Baker
Filed 7/11/16 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL B245131 DIVERSITY et al., (Super. Ct. No. BS131347) Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE,
Defendant and Appellant;
THE NEWHALL LAND AND FARMING COMPANY,
Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ann I. Jones, Judge. Reversed with directions in part; affirmed in part. Office of the General Counsel, Thomas R. Gibson, General Counsel, Wendy L. Bogdan, General Counsel and John H. Mattox, Senior Staff Counsel; Thomas Law Group, Tina A. Thomas, Ashle T. Crocker and Amy R. Higuera, for Defendant and Appellant California Department of Fish and Game. Gatze Dillon & Balance, Mark J. Dillon and David P. Hubbard; Morrison & Foerster and Miriam A. Vogel; Nielsen Merksamer Parinello Gross & Leoni and Arthur
* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1100 and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts II, III and IV.
G. Scotland; and Downey Brand and Patrick G. Mitchell, for Real Party in Interest and Appellant The Newhall Land and Farming Company. John Buse and Adam Keats; Chatten-Brown and Carstens, Jan Chatten-Brown and Doug Carstens, for Plaintiffs and Respondents Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Sara Clara River, Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment, and California Native Plant Society. Jason Weiner; Chatten-Brown and Carstens, Jan Chatten-Brown and Doug Carstens, for Plaintiffs and Respondents Wishtoyo Foundation/Ventura Coastkeeper.
after issuing an opinion, remanded the case to us. (Center for Biological Diversity v.
Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 241 (Center for Biological
Diversity).)
In the published portion of this opinion, we will discuss the developer‟s
contention, concurred in by the department, that we should supervise compliance with a
writ of mandate. As will be noted, the developer and the department argue we should in
essence issue our own writ of mandate and then supervise compliance with our orders.
3
This contention is based upon language appearing in Public Resources Code1 section
21186.9, subdivision (a) and our Supreme Court‟s opinion. As will noted, we conclude
we do not have that authority since we are reviewing this case on direct appeal. Our
disposition is to reverse the judgment in part and affirm it in part.
[Parts II, III and IV are deleted from publication. See post at page 25 where publication
is to resume.]
II. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Our Supreme Court reached three conclusions concerning the greenhouse gas
omission analysis in the environment impact report. In the introduction to the opinion,
our Supreme Court identified two of the three greenhouse gas emissions issues it was
deciding: “We conclude, first, that as to greenhouse gas emissions the environmental
impact report employs a legally permissible criterion of significance—whether the
project was consistent with meeting statewide emission reduction goals—but the report‟s
finding that the project‟s emissions would not be significant under that criterion is not
supported by a reasoned explanation based on substantial evidence.” (Center for
Biological Diversity, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 213.) At issue is the requirement that an
environmental impact report classify adverse ecological effects as significant or less than
1 Future statutory references, unless otherwise stated, are to the Public Resources Code. Future references to Guidelines are to the regulatory provisions located in California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et seq. The Guidelines are promulgated by the California Natural Resources Agency to implement the California Environmental Quality Act. (§ 21083, subd. (e); Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 448, fn. 4.)
supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 225.) The trial court‟s ruling is inconsistent with our Supreme
Court‟s baseline calculation analysis. Thus, that portion of the trial court‟s ruling as
reflected in the final statement of decision must be reversed.
6
Third, our Supreme Court held that the environmental impact report‟s finding of
no significant ecological impact under that criterion was not supported by substantial
evidence. Our Supreme Court articulated its analysis on several occasions. For purposes
of completeness, we identify the core analysis of our Supreme Court: “[W]e agree with
plaintiffs that [the department] abused its discretion in finding, on the basis of the
[environmental impact report‟s] business-as-usual comparison, that the project‟s
greenhouse gas emissions would have no cumulatively significant impact on the
environment. We reach this conclusion because the administrative record discloses no
substantial evidence that Newhall Ranch‟s project-level reduction of 31 percent in
comparison to business as usual is consistent with achieving [Health and Safety Code
section 38850]‟s statewide goal of a 29 percent reduction from business as usual, a lacuna
both dissenting opinions fail to address. Even using the [environmental impact report]‟s
own significance criterion, the [environmental impact report]‟s analysis fails to support
its conclusion of no significant impact.” (Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 62
Cal.4th at p. 225.)
At another point, our Supreme Court summarized the scope of its holding: “At
bottom, the [environmental impact report]‟s deficiency stems from taking a quantitative
comparison method developed by the Scoping Plan as a measure of the greenhouse gas
emissions reduction effort required by the state as a whole, and attempting to use that
method, without consideration of any changes or adjustments, for a purpose very
different from its original design: To measure the efficiency and conservation measures
incorporated in a specific land use development proposed for a specific location. The
7
[environmental impact report] simply assumes that the level of effort required in one
context, a 29 percent reduction from business as usual statewide, will suffice in the other,
a specific land use development. From the information in the administrative record, we
cannot say that conclusion is wrong, but neither can we discern the contours of a logical
argument that it is right. The analytical gap left by the [environmental impact report]‟s
failure to establish, through substantial evidence and reasoned explanation, a quantitative
equivalence between the Scoping Plan‟s statewide comparison and the [environmental
impact report]‟s own project-level comparison deprived the [environmental impact
report] of its “„sufficiency as an informative document.”‟ (Laurel Heights Improvement
Assn v. Regents of University of California[ (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376,] 392.)” (Center for
Biological Diversity, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 227.) In its conclusion, our Supreme Court
summarized its holding, “We conclude . . . that [the department] abused its discretion by
making the determination, without the support of substantial evidence, that the project‟s
greenhouse gas emissions would have no significant impact. . . .” (Id. at p. 240.)
In terms of our disposition, the trial court‟s ruling is reversed on two counts. First,
the trial court‟s ruling that the selection of the Health and Safety Code section 38850
reductions as a significance criterion was an abuse of discretion is reversed. Second, that
portion of the trial court‟s ruling concluding that comparing the project‟s expected
emissions to a hypothetical business-as-usual scenario is impermissible is reversed. But
the judgment is affirmed as to the trial court‟s ruling there is no substantial evidence the
project‟s greenhouse gas emissions will not result in a cumulatively significant
environmental impact. Once the remittitur issues, the trial court is to issue a writ of
8
mandate. The writ of mandate is to state that the department‟s finding the project‟s
greenhouse gas emissions will have no significant impact is not supported by substantial
evidence and reasoned discussion.
III. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROTECTING THE UNARMORED
THREESPINE STICKLEBACK
Our Supreme Court held that mitigation measures BIO-44 and BIO-46 violate the
Fish and Game Code section 5515 prohibition against the taking of the unarmored
threespine stickleback. Upon remittitur issuance, a writ of mandate is to issue setting
aside the department‟s approval of BIO-44 and BIO-46. (Center for Biological Diversity,
supra, 62 Cal.4th at pp. 231-237.)
IV. NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURAL RESOURCES AND STEELHEAD SMOLT
ISSUES
A. Supreme Court Remand Order
Our Supreme Court remanded the case to us to determine whether to reconsider
two issues concerning Native American cultural resources and the effect of dissolved
copper on steelhead smolt. The reason for our Supreme Court‟s remand order as to these
two issues is as follows. This case involved the filing of a joint environmental impact
statement/environmental impact report by defendant and the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (the engineering corps). (Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 62 Cal.4th
at pp. 213-214, 237-238.) The National Environmental Protection Act permits public
comment after certification of an environmental impact statement. (Id. at p. 237-238; 40
C.F.R. §§ 1503.1(b), 1506.10(b)(2).) Here, the department responded to comments
9
received after preparation of the environmental impact report while jointly engaging in
environmental review with the engineering corps. (Center for Biological Diversity,
supra, 62 Cal.4th at pp. 214, 237-238.) We held that the plaintiff‟s comments were
untimely. Our Supreme Court held that, under the facts of this case, the comments were
timely. (Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 62 Cal.4th at pp. 238-239.)
However, that did not end the issue before our Supreme Court. The department
and the developer argued that since we found substantial evidence supported the
environmental impact report‟s conclusions, our judgment should be affirmed. By
contrast, plaintiffs argued that the entire issue should be revisited on the merits. Our
Supreme Court ruled that we should decide whether a merits reexamination was
warranted. (Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 239.) We have
reexamined the merits of the issues concerning Native American cultural resources and
the effect of dissolved copper on steelhead smolt. We, with respect, conclude that
substantial evidence supports the department‟s conclusions and plaintiff‟s assertions are
all premised on a misapplication of the standard of review.
B. Native American Cultural Resources
The first issue remanded to us involves the environmental impact report‟s
discussion of Native American cultural resources. The trial court disapproved the
environmental impact report‟s Native American cultural resources discussion. Plaintiffs
argued that the environmental impact report failed to adequately disclose evaluate or
mitigate the projects impacts on Native American cultural resources. In our prior
10
opinion, we held that no grounds existed to set aside the environmental impact report‟s
certification.
We conclude the following. As noted, our Supreme Court explained that there are
two letters which were timely filed. The first is a August 2, 2010 letter from Chumash
Ceremonial Elder Mati Waiya which contains an extensive attachment. Elder Waiya
argues: there are many remnants of Chumash tribal culture present in the “[p]roject
area”; the project‟s footprint would be devastating to Chumash tribal burial, sacred and
ceremonial sites and cultural resources such as the California condor; there were other
burial sites other than those identified in the environmental impact report; [s]ufficient and
reasonably diligent field surveys are necessary to identify the impacts on Native
American cultural and historic resources”; the W&S Consultants‟ report was fatally
flawed in that it erroneously stated the Tataviam Tribe was extinct; reliance on the W&S
Consultants‟ report was thus “concerning”; and the project will drive away and kill the
California condor which is part of Chumash tribal religious and cultural and spirituality.
Elder Waiya concludes in part: “When I look at the river, I recall the years of going up
and down the river with my uncle, cousin, and mother. It is one of the last wild rivers
and holds deer, coyote, various natural and cultural resources, and our ancestors. It is
hard to imagine destroying the [p]roject area with concrete, buildings, noise, lights and
trash pollution. Not only does this disturb the whole natural system, but also disturbs the
spirits of our ancestors.” Attached to Elder Waiya‟s letter is a 392 page document
entitled, “Ethonographic Overview of the Los Padres National Forest.” Prepared by
Northwest Economic Associates for the United States Department of Agriculture, it
11
contains a 79-page study of Chumash and Tataviam tribal life and settlements. Elder
Waiya‟s letter only directly makes reference to page 219 of the Northwest Economic
Associates study. In her letter, Elder Waiya identifies a map which she argues shows the
Tataviam village was located in the project area.
The department responded to Elder Waiya‟s comments. The department‟s
responses to Elder Waiya‟s comments warrant full explication and are as follows:
accepted standards of practice were utilized in conducting archival and intensive
pedestrian surveys; the environmental impact report identified the past presence of the
Tataviam Tribe within the project site; despite intensive surveys and test excavations,
there was no evidence that “hundreds upon hundreds” of Tataviam tribal sites were
located in the project area; mitigation measures provided for the presence of an
archaeologist if construction occurs within 300 feet of any known archaeological sites; a
mitigation measure imposes a 50-foot buffer around any known archaeological site in the
case of any earth disturbance; and another mitigation measure requires specified actions
be taken if any Native American cultural resources are encountered during grading. In
addition, the department notes that an August 2007 agreement had been entered into with
the Fernando Tataviam Band of Mission Indians which provided funding for use in the
development of Tataviam cultural enrichment programs; constructing a Tataviam
interpretive cultural center; and educating the surrounding non-native community.
Moreover, in the event of the discovery of human remains, a specified protocol must be
followed consisting of: notification of the Los Angeles County Corner; if the remains are
Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission is to be notified; that
12
commission is to identify a person who is the most likely descendent from the deceased
Native American‟s tribe; other specified steps are to be followed in compliance with
section 5097.98 as appropriate; and reburial is to occur along with associated grave goods
in an area not subject to further subsurface disturbance.
In terms of the project‟s impacts on the California condor, the department
responded to Elder Waiya‟s comments: “no designated critical habitat” for the species
exists in the project site; this is because there is little suitable foraging and nesting habitat
in the project area; this is because there is a lack of abundant prey in the project area; no
harvesting of condor feathers occurs within the project area because it is closed to the
public; and extensive archival data indicates that the condor never figured prominently in
Chumash tribal culture. In addition, the department‟s comments reiterate the analysis in
the environmental impact report which indicates: in the 25 years preceding 2008, no
condor was never observed in the project area; between 2008 and 2009, condors did land
in the project area on several occasions; due to the lack of prey and limited foraging
opportunities with the project area, construction activities would have no adverse impact
on the condor; suitable foraging habitat is present in the High Country Special
Management and Salt Creek Areas which would not be affected by the buildout within
the specific plan‟s confines; and risks to individual condor were rated as highly unlikely
because the species rarely enters the project area. The environmental impact report
concluded that, absent mitigation, short- and long-term secondary impacts, which include
potential mortality from interaction with human conduct would be significant.
13
In addition, the department‟s lengthy responses to Elder Waiya‟s comments
discussed the mitigation measures designed to protect the condor. The mitigation
measures include: the presence of a qualified biologist during construction with the
authority to stop any work; notification of the department in the case of condor sightings;
training of construction workers concerning the avoidance of micro-trash which could
have a potentially fatal impact on condors; and the removal of dead cattle to the High
Country Special Management and Salt Creek Areas thereby reducing the risk of injury to
condors. Other mitigation measures insured the presence of foraging habitat in the
specific plan area: management of the habitat in the Salt Creek Area; limitations on
utilities, which can cause injuries or death to the condor in the Salt Creek Area; the
preservation of 1,900 acres of coastal scrub within the project site as well as in the
specific plan area; and imposing requirements for restoration of coastal sage scrub in the
event of invasive species, fire, erosion, drought or unforeseen events. And the mitigation
measures included preconstruction meetings with a qualified biologist to discuss
procedures for minimizing harm to or harassment of wildlife. Finally, the mitigation
measures require: homeowner association educational materials concerning pets and the
requirement they be kept on leashes; specified limitations on the construction of utility
poles and cell and phone towers so as to reduce collisions with condors and other birds;
and the installation of anti-perching devices to deter condors and other raptors from
perching on antennae and phone and utility towers. As a result, the environmental impact
report concluded that the long-term secondary impacts to the California Condor would be
adverse but not significant.
14
Finally, the department responded to Elder Waiya‟s comments about how the
project would destroy the cultural landscape of the Chumash Tribe. As noted in our
original opinion, W&S Consultants conducted an extensive physical examination of the
entire project site. That review of the project site failed to uncover any evidence of
Chumash Tribe artifacts. Further, the Tataviam Tribe whose territory historically
encompassed the project site, expressed support for the proposed construction. As to
both the California condor and historic site arguments presented by Elder Waiya, none of
them directly addressed any issues relating to the mitigation measures.
The second letter, authored by Jason Weiner of the Wishtoyo Foundation dated
August 3, 2010, reiterates many of the same concerns as those expressed by Elder Waiya.
Mr. Weiner‟s analysis challenges the following aspects of the environmental impact
report: it fails to recognize the historic presence of Chumash Tribe in the project area;
the procedure for preserving unanticipated discovery of human remains is not in
compliance with relevant statutory and regulatory provisions; there had been a failure to
consult with trustee agencies regarding as required by Guidelines section 15086,
subdivision (a)(2); the mitigation measures in connection with cultural resources are
inadequate; and there was a failure to identify and analyze impacts in connection with
historic sacred sites that depend on the condor‟s presence. As did Elder Waiya, Mr.
Weiner also references the Northwest Economic Associates prepared for the federal
agriculture department.
The department prepared a 14-page single spaced response to Mr. Weiner‟s letter.
Much of our analysis concerning Elder Waiya‟s comments apply equally here. The W&S
15
Consultants‟ study, which encompassed both archival research and archeologists walking
the entirety of the project, constitutes substantial evidence supporting the department‟s
cultural resources conclusions. The W&S Consultants‟ study uncovered no evidence of
the Chumash Tribe‟s presence in the project site. Further, the W&S Consultants‟ study
located eight prehistoric sites in the specific plan area. And, the specific plan imposes
mitigation measures SP-4.3-1 through SP-4.3-3 and SP-5.0-21 in the case of any
discoveries of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites and remains. The
environmental impact report engages in a lengthy analysis of direct and indirect impacts
on Native American cultural resources under various development scenarios. Moreover,
the environmental impact report imposes mitigation measures CR-1a through CR-6
which require: the protection of the two sites labeled CA-LAN-2133 and CA-LAN-2233
from development and vandalism; in the event that either of these sites cannot be
avoided, the data recovery mitigation program must be instituted after consultation with
the Tataviam tribal community; strict limitations on earth disturbance within 300 feet of
any known archaeological site; and a specified procedure to be followed in the event of
the discovery of cultural resources during grading in the project area. Finally, mitigation
measure CR-6 identifies procedures to be followed when any human remains are
discovered except on a dedicated cemetery.
Additionally, the department‟s comments explain there has been full compliance
with Guidelines section 15064.5, subdivision (d) concerning consultation with other
agencies. The department‟s comments also identify and attach letters sent to persons
representing the interests of the various Native American tribes and documented
16
telephone conversations. Also attached to the department‟s comments are copies of
letters sent by the engineering corps to individuals representing Native American
interests or other government organizations.
The department‟s responses to the Native American cultural resources comments
fully comply with California‟s statutory or regulatory and decisional requirements. A lead
agencies written responses must describe the disposition of each significant
environmental issue raised in the public comments. (§ 21091, subd. (d)(2)(B);
Guidelines, § 15088, subd. (c).) The lead agency‟s responses must consist of a good faith
reasoned analysis. (Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County
of Los Angeles (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 715, 723; Cleary v. County of Stanislaus (1981)
118 Cal.App.3d 348, 357.) It is insufficient for a lead agency to merely provide
conclusory statements which are unsupported by factual information. (Laurel Heights
Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1124;
Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182,
191.) The lead agency must explain in detail its reasons for rejecting suggestions and
proceeding with the project despite its environmental effects. (Laurel Heights
Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1124;
Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 191.) The lead agency
need not respond to every public comment, but it must explicitly respond to the most
significant environmental questions raised in opposition to the project. (Browning-Ferris
Industries v. City Council (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 862; Environmental Protection
Information Center, Inc. v. Johnson (1985) 170 Cal. App. 3d 604, 628.) As can be noted,
17
the department‟s responses to the comments fully comply with the requirements imposed
by section 21091, subdivision (d)(2)(B) and Guidelines, section 15088, subdivision (c).
In terms of the ultimate merits of whether the department‟s certification
determination was correct, we stand by our prior opinion. In terms of the correctness of a
lead agency‟s environmental conclusions, our Supreme Court has explained: “Thus, the
reviewing court „“does not pass upon the correctness of the [environmental impact
report‟s] environmental conclusions, but only upon its sufficiency as an informative
document.”‟ [Citations.] We may not set aside an agency‟s approval of an
[environmental impact report] on the ground that an opposite conclusion would have
been equally or more reasonable.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors
(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564, quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of
University of California, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 392 and County of Inyo v. City of Los
Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 189.) Thus, we defer to the department‟s resolution
of conflicting opinions and evidence. (Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court
(1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 572; Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento
(2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1042.) Our standard of review is the same as that of the
trial court. We do not review the trial court‟s decision; rather, we examine the
department‟s adherence to the law and environmental conclusions. (Vineyard Area
Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412,
426-427; Melom v. City of Madera (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 41, 47-48.) Every contention
posited by plaintiffs contravenes the foregoing standard of review for a lead agency‟s
environmental conclusions.
18
As we explained in detail in our original opinion, substantial evidence supports the
department‟s findings concerning Native American cultural resources. As we explained
in our prior opinion: the environmental impact report‟s conclusions are based upon
scholarly archival analysis and the Phase I and II surveys conducted by W&S
Consultants; the W&S Consultants staff included credentialed academics; the discussion
in the project and specific plan environmental impact reports is exhaustive; as to the
burial locations discovered during the W&S Consultants‟ surveys, the sites denominated
CA-LAN-2133 and CA-LAN-2233 are protected by explicit mitigation measures; and in
the unlikely event Native American resources were uncovered, the project and specific
plan environmental impact reports‟ mitigation measures impose extensive protection for
those resources. There is no merit to plaintiffs‟ arguments concerning the extent of the
mitigation plan. As we explained in our original opinion: the extensive pedestrian
survey revealed virtually no Native American cultural resources in the specific plan and
therefore the project area; the use of preservation in place practices, as is discussed at the
length in the environmental impact report, is the preferred technique for mitigating
archaeological impacts (Guidelines, § 15126.4, sub. (b)(3)); specific limitations are
imposed on construction near the two known burial sites; and if it is infeasible to avoid
construction on a burial site or location where cultural resources are discovered, specific
contingencies are to be implemented. We summarized those wide-ranging contingencies
in our original opinion: Phase III data collection operations are to be completed which is
in essence a salvage venture; if additional artifacts are uncovered, an archaeologist is to
be notified; the archaeologist is to stabilize and evaluate the discovery; and any Phase III
19
salvage operation must be conducted in consultation with Tataviam community, the tribe
that historically inhabited the project area. If possible, the newly discovered site is to be
protected by specified protective measures. Finally, the discovery of human remains
must be handled in compliance with section 5097.98 and Guidelines section 15064.5
subdivision (e). Thus, as we held in our original opinion, the trial court‟s rulings
concerning Native American cultural resources are reversed.
C. Impacts on Steelhead Smolt
The second issue remanded to us concerns the impact of dissolved copper runoff
from the project site on steelhead smolt. Our Supreme Court, as in the case of the Native
American cultural resources issues, left to us the question of whether are merits based
determinations warranted reexamination. (Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 62
Cal.4th at p. 239.) Upon, reexamination we reach the same ultimate conclusions as we
did in our initial opinion. And it bears emphasis that the environmental impact report
concludes there is no significant ecological impact after the implementation of the
mitigation measures.
Before discussing the effect of dissolved copper runoff on steelhead smolt, it is
wise to describe the so-called “dry gap.” A material part of the scientific analysis
supporting the environmental impact report and the discussion therein concerning
dissolved copper runoff in the Santa Clara River involves the dry gap. The dry gap is
described in the April 2008 report of GSI Water Solutions, Inc. which assesses future
surface water conditions in that part of the Santa Clara River. The dry gap is defined by
the GSI Water Solutions, Inc. staff as follows: “Beginning about 3.5 river miles
20
downstream of the county line, the [Santa Clara] [R]iver is dry most of the year, with
water present only when rainfall events creates sufficient stormwater runoff into the
[Santa Clara] [R]iver. This dry ephemeral reach of the [Santa Clara] [R]iver extends
beyond the mouth of Piru Creek as informally known as the „dry gap‟ in the Santa Clara
River.” (As will be noted, the dry gap discussion is but part of the scientific analysis
pertinent to whether the project will have a significant environmental impact.)
Two paragraphs in plaintiffs‟ mandate petition contain direct allegations
concerning steelhead smolt. Plaintiffs allege the environmental impact report fails to
analyze and mitigate water quality impacts below the “dry gap” in the Santa Clara River
and coastal marine waters. At another point, the mandate petition alleges: “The
[environmental impact report] fails to identify the [p]roject‟s significant water quality
impacts to southern steelhead smolt residing in the Santa Clara River estuary, migrating
adult steelhead in the Santa Clara River, or migrating steelhead smolt in the Santa Clara
River, nor does it provide measures to mitigate those impacts to a less than significant
effect.” Plaintiffs argued in their papers filed in the trial court, “The [environmental
impact report] fails to analyze the sub- lethal . . . impacts of the [project‟s] discharges of
dissolved copper on juvenile steelhead.” The trial court ruled that the environmental
impact report failed to adequately discuss the impact of dissolved copper discharged from
the project area on steelhead smolt. The trial court ruled, “The [environmental impact
report] fails to consider . . . whether the dissolved copper discharged from the [p]roject
[a]rea . . . would adversely affect restored habitat for endangered steelhead smolt.”
21
In our original opinion, we reached two conclusions. First, we concluded that the
entire steelhead smolt issue had been forfeited because it was not raised during the
comment period. As noted, our Supreme Court held these issues were timely raised.
(Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 62 Cal.4th at pp. 238-239.)
Second, we held that plaintiffs‟ dissolved copper discharge and steelhead smolt
contentions were not a basis for setting aside the environmental impact report‟s
certification. We concluded there was substantial evidence the water quality impacts
were less than significant because: the steelhead smolt‟s habitat was below the dry gap in
the Santa Clara River downstream from the project area; dissolved copper runoff is
regulated by the federally adopted California Toxics Rule criteria; the dissolved copper
threshold for toxicity is 32 micrograms and above per liter; utilizing the California Toxics
Rule criteria, after mitigation, the dissolved copper levels will be reduced to 8.4
micrograms per liter; this contrasts with the concentrations in the Santa Clara River in the
project area which range currently from 3.3 to 22.6 micrograms per liter; and even during
a wet year when there would be flooding over the dry gap, the toxicity levels would be
below the federally adopted California Toxics Rule criteria. In addition, we adverted to
the mitigation measures SP-4.2-7 and WQ-1 which impose: ecologically friendly
comprehensive project site design features; runoff source control; and monitoring of
water quality in the Santa Clara River.
The environmental impact report and the department‟s comment responses:
identify the area of the Santa Clara River watershed, 1,634 square miles; specify that the
project consists of 1.4 per cent of the total Santa Clara River watershed, thereby
22
attenuating the effects of any dissolved copper runoff; describe the location and effect of
the dry gap where the Santa Clara River goes underground which is 3.5 miles
downstream from the project; explain that the dry gap therefore attenuates the effect any
dissolved copper runoff during the dry and non-flood seasons; ; set forth the identified
range of observed concentrations of dissolved copper in the Santa Clara River in the
project area, 3.3 through 22.6 micrograms per liter; identify the project site‟s present and
post-development anticipated dissolved copper concentration amounts, increasing from
7.5 to 8.4 micrograms per liter after utilizing environmentally sensitive project design
features; state that this level of anticipated dissolve copper runoff, 8.4 micrograms per
liter, is less than 32 micrograms per liter; explain that no steelhead smolt habitat exists
above the dry gap; note that no historical records demonstrate the existence of steelhead
smolt in the Santa Clara River upstream from the dry gap ; explain the buildout in the
project area will entail only 5 percent of the land thereby reducing the effect of runoff in
a wet year when the dry gap is breached and waters flow into the Santa Clara River‟s
lower reaches ; note the department was justified in relying upon the California Toxics
Rule; and conclude that if the dry gap is breached during a flood scenario, the project‟s
anticipated dissolved copper runoff will be below the California Toxics Rule toxicity
level.
The environmental impact report concluded: “The modeled concentrations in
runoff from the [p]roject area are below all benchmark water quality objectives and
criteria and [total daily maximum load] waste load allocations for the Santa Clara River
and are addressed by a comprehensive site design, source control, and treatment control
23
strategy, and compliance with Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan [],
Construction General Permit, and General De-Watering Permit requirements.” Hence,
the department concluded the projected runoff loads will not significantly change the
pollutant load in the Santa Clara River at the project or in its lower reaches. The
engineering corps agreed with the department‟s assessment. The environmental impact
report concludes, after engaging in an extensive reasoned discussion of the subject, that
the impact of dissolved copper will be less than significant. The less than significant
impact finding, when environmentally responsible design features are incorporated into
the project, is documented by the April 2008 Geosyntec Consultants study.
No doubt, plaintiffs produced contrary evidence concerning the impacts on
steelhead smolt in the lower reaches of the Santa Clara River. That plaintiffs produced
contrary evidence did not permit the trial court nor allows us to invalidate the
department‟s certification of the environmental impact report. As noted, we may not
reweigh the conflicting evidence and scientific analysis. (Western States Petroleum Assn.
v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 572; Environmental Council of Sacramento v.
City of Sacramento, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 1042.) Having reexamined our
analysis, we thus reaffirm our prior decision. The trial court‟s findings in connection
with dissolved copper runoff and steelhead smolt are reversed.
24
[The balance of this opinion is to be published.]
V. THE SCOPE OF OUR REMAND ORDER
A. The Parties‟ Remand Arguments
The trial court ruled that six aspects of the environmental impact report were
deficient and entered a stay of any construction on the project site. The trial court ruled
the following errors appeared in the environmental impact report: the department failed
to prevent the taking of the unarmored threespine stickleback as part of construction of a
bridge over the Santa Clara River; the environmental impact report failed to assess the
impact of project-related dissolved copper discharge when storm waters breached the dry
gap; the department‟s analysis of mitigation measures for the San Fernando Spineflower
was legally impermissible; the department‟s assessment of the project‟s greenhouse gas
omissions were inadequate; the environmental impact reports assessment of the project‟s
impact on Native American cultural resources was not supported by substantial evidence;
and the environmental impact report improperly relied upon portions of the specific plan
in rejecting alternatives to the project. We reversed in their entirety the trial court‟s
findings as to: the effects of dissolved copper runoff on steelhead smolt; the San
Fernando Spineflower preserves; Native American resources; and reliance upon the
specific plan. We have reversed in part the trial court‟s greenhouse gas emission findings
concerning selection of a criterion of significance and its application to a business as
usual scenario. We have affirmed the trial court‟s greenhouse gas findings concerning
the absence of substantial evidence to support the no significant impact finding. We have
25
affirmed the trial court‟s findings disapproving mitigation measures BIO-44 and BIO-46
which arise from the construction of a bridge over the Santa Clara River.
After our Supreme Court issued its opinion, the developer filed a motion re
remand concerning the scope of our ruling which is concurred in by the department.
Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to some of the developer‟s arguments. The developer
and the department argue our Supreme Court‟s opinion permits us retain jurisdiction to
supervise the completion of the environmental review process. The developer argues as
follows in part: “[T]he the superior court judge who heard and decided this case (Hon.
Ann I. Jones) is no longer hearing mandate petitions, and this case has been reassigned to
the Hon. John A. Torribio. Although Judge Torribio decided the related cases (Friends of
the Santa Clara River v. County of Los Angeles, No. B256125, and California Native
Plant Society v. County of Los Angeles, No. B258090, both of which are still pending
before the Supreme Court as „grant and holds‟ ancillary to this case, Judge Torribio is not
familiar with the facts of this case (this case is never been before him.) Accordingly,
remand to the superior court would necessarily result in delays that are to be avoided in
[California Environmental Quality Act] litigation.” In addition, the developer and the
department argue that this court is intimately familiar with this case. According to the
developer and the department, by retaining jurisdiction, this court‟s familiarity with the
case will ameliorate the potential prejudice caused by the delays to date. The developer
concludes: “We ask this [c]ourt to reaffirm its original holding concerning the merits of
the steelhead and cultural resources claims; retain jurisdiction of the greenhouse gas and
26
unarmored threespine stickleback issues; and use [the developer‟s] proposed writ as a
guide for this court. . . .”
Plaintiffs argue we should not retain jurisdiction but issue a remittitur directing the
trial court to decide any remaining issues. Plaintiffs argue as follows in part. A
reviewing court has the authority to act as specified in Code of Civil Procedure section
43, which states in part: “[T]he courts of appeal, may affirm, reverse, or modify any
judgment or order appealed from, and may direct the proper judgment or order to be
entered, or direct a new trial or further proceedings to be had. In giving its decision, if a
new trial be granted, the court shall pass upon and determine all the questions of law
involved in the case, presented upon such appeal, and necessary to the final determination
of the case. Its judgment in appealed cases shall be remitted to the court from which the
appeal was taken.” (See Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688,
701.) Further, Code of Civil Procedure section 912 states in part, “Upon final
determination of an appeal by the reviewing court, the clerk of the court shall remit to the
trial court a certified copy of the judgment or order of the reviewing court and of its
opinion, if any.” (See Snukal v. Flightways Manufacturing, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 764,
774.)
The developer and the department argue these statutory provisions which apply to
appeals do not apply here. The developer and the department rely upon the general
principle that litigation involving environmental impact report should be promptly
concluded. (§ 21167.1, subd. (a); Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of
Stockton (2010) 48 Cal.4th 41, 500.) More specifically, the developer and the department
27
rely upon the following portion of section 21168.9, subdivision (a) which states in part,
“(a) If a court finds, as a result of a trial, hearing, or remand from an appellate court,
that any determination, finding, or decision of a public agency has been made without
compliance with this division, the court shall enter an order that includes one or more of
the following. . . .” (Italics added.) The developer and the department focus upon this
italicized language as the basis for its contention concerning our future obligations.
Section 21168.9, subdivision (a) then identifies a series of actions that may be taken as a
result of a remand from an appellate court .2
Section 21168.9, subdivision (b) limits the authority of a court to “include only
those mandates which are necessary” to achieve compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act. Section 21168.9, subdivision (b) contains three relevant
provisions. The first aspect limits the court‟s mandate to those matters necessary to
achieve compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, “Any order pursuant
2 Section 21168.9, subdivision (a) states in its entirety: “(a) If a court finds, as a result of a trial, hearing, or remand from an appellate court, that any determination, finding, or decision of a public agency has been made without compliance with this division, the court shall enter an order that includes one or more of the following: [¶] (1) A mandate that the determination, finding, or decision be voided by the public agency, in whole or in part. [¶] (2) If the court finds that a specific project activity or activities will prejudice the consideration or implementation of particular mitigation measures or alternatives to the project, a mandate that the public agency and any real parties in interest suspend any or all specific project activity or activities, pursuant to the determination, finding, or decision, that could result in an adverse change or alteration to the physical environment, until the public agency has taken any actions that may be necessary to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with this division. [¶] (3) A mandate that the public agency take specific action as may be necessary to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with this division.”
28
to subdivision (a) shall include only those mandates which are necessary to achieve
compliance with this division and only those specific project activities in noncompliance
with this division.” (Ibid.) The order shall be made by the issuance of a peremptory writ
of mandate specifying what action by the public agency is necessary to comply with this
division. The second aspect of section 21168.9, subdivision (b) imposes a three-fold
severability requirement if only a limited portion of the proposed project is to be set
aside: “However, the order shall be limited to that portion of a determination, finding, or
decision or the specific project activity or activities found to be in noncompliance only if
a court finds that (1) the portion or specific project activity or activities are severable, (2)
severance will not prejudice complete and full compliance with this division, and (3) the
court has not found the remainder of the project to be in noncompliance with this
division.” (See Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th
1173, 1181; Kostka & Zischke, § 23.124, pp. 23-139 to 23-140.) The final aspect of
section 21168.9, subdivision (b) states a trial court retains jurisdiction by way of a writ of
mandate to ensure the public agency has complied with the California Environmental
Quality Act, “The trial court shall retain jurisdiction over the public agency‟s proceedings
by way of a return to the peremptory writ until the court has determined that the public
agency has complied with this division.” (See Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of
Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 479.)
According to the developer and the department, section 21168.9, subdivision (a)
vests this court with the power to supervise compliance our decision. This is because we
have acted “as a result of a . . . remand from an appellate court. . . .” In addition, the
29
developer and the department rely upon the following language in our Supreme Court‟s
opinion: “On remand, the Court of Appeal shall decide whether, in light of our
exhaustion holding, the Native American cultural resource and steelhead smolt claims
warrant reexamination on the merits. The Court of Appeal shall further decide, or
remand for the superior court to decide, the parameters of the writ of mandate to be
issued. (See § 21168.9.)” (Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 240.)
According to the developer and the department, our Supreme Court‟s language and
section 21168.9, subdivision (a) give us the authority to issue our own writ of mandate
and supervise compliance therewith.
B. Standard of Review and the Presence of Ambiguous Statutory Language
We are construing the effect of section 21168.9, subdivision (a) to our situation.
Our Supreme Court has explained: “When construing a statute, we look first to its words,
„“because they generally provide the most reliable indicator of legislative intent.”
[Citation.] We give the words their usual and ordinary meaning [citation], while
construing them in light of the statute as a whole and the statute‟s purpose [citation].‟
(Pineda v. Williams-Stores, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 524, 529-530.)” (Accord, In re Ethan
C. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 610, 627.) According to our Supreme Court: “„If there is no
ambiguity in the language, we presume the Legislature meant what it said and the plain
meaning of the statute governs.‟ [Citation.] „Only when the statute‟s language is
ambiguous or susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, may the court turn
to extrinsic aids to assist in interpretation.‟ [Citation.]” (Pineda v. Williams-Stores, Inc.,
supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 530; see In re Ethan C., supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 627.)
30
As noted, the developer and the department focus upon the language in section
21168.9, subdivision (a). The rely on the language that “as a result of . . . remand from
an appellate court” and argue we may issue a writ of mandate. As noted, section
21168.9, subdivision (a)(1) through (a)(3) specifies potential aspects of the “court[‟s]”
writ of mandate. Hence, they argue, we are the “court” that has the authority to issue the
writ of mandate directed at the department. We are satisfied that the term “appellate
court” in our context is subject to some ambiguity. Although the term appellate court
generally refers to the Court of Appeal or an appellate division, our Supreme Court
decides appeals. And it can be logically argued that when the Supreme Court remands an
appeal as it did here, section 21168.9, subdivision (a) permits us to issue a writ of
mandate. The developer and the department add to this textual analysis by adverting to
the need for prompt resolution California Environmental Quality Act litigation. (§
21167.1, subd. (a) [“In all actions or proceedings brought pursuant to Sections 21167,
21168, and 21168.5, including the hearing of an action or proceeding on appeal from a
decision of a lower court, all courts in which the action or proceeding is pending shall
give the action or proceeding preference over all other civil actions, in the matter of
setting the action or proceeding for hearing or trial, and in hearing or trying the action or
proceeding, so that the action or proceeding shall be quickly heard and determined.”];
Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, supra, 48 Cal. 4th 481, 500
[“‟The Legislature has obviously structured the legal process for a [California
Environmental Quality Act] challenge to be speedy, so as to prevent it from degenerating
into a guerilla war of attrition by which project opponents wear out project
31
proponents.‟”].) And the Courts of Appeal do have original mandate jurisdiction. (Cal.
Const., art. VI, § 10 [“The . . . courts of appeal . . . and their judges have original
jurisdiction in . . . proceedings for extraordinary relief in the nature of mandamus,
certiorari, and prohibition.”]; Brosnahan v. Brown (1982) 32 Cal.3d 236, 241 [original
proceeding filed in Court of Appeal and transferred to our Supreme Court].) In light of
the foregoing, we will evaluate the circumstances leading up to the enactment of section
21168.9, subdivision (a) and its reference to a remand from an appellate court.
C. Limited Legislative History Concerning Section 21168.9
Section 21168.9 was introduced as Senate Bill No. 1079 (1983-1984 Reg. Sess.)
(Sen. Bill No. 1079). When originally introduced on March 4, 1983, Senate Bill 1079
made no reference to the issue of the scope of a writ of mandate to be issued in an
environmental case. Rather, when originally introduced, Senate Bill No. 1079 related to
costs of suit and attorney fees in environmental litigation involving low or moderate
income housing projects. (Sen. Bill No. 1079 as introduced Mar. 4, 1983; Sen. Com. on
Housing and Urban Affairs, rep. on Sen. Bill No. 1079, Mar. 4, 1983, p. 1.) Later, while
still initially pending in the upper house, Senate Bill No. 1079 was amended to address
other zoning, public planning issues and environmental matters.
On July 25, 1983, Robert K. Break of the law firm of Latham & Watkins wrote a
letter to Maxine Harris Brookner. Mr. Break‟s letter proposed an amendment to the
California Environmental Quality Act. Mr. Break‟s letter was received while Senate Bill
No. 1079 was under consideration in the upper house. Ms. Brookner was a Senate
Committee on Housing and Urban Affairs staffer. Mr. Break requested that legislation be
32
adopted providing for greater flexibility when selecting remedies in the case of a
California Environmental Quality Act violation. Mr. Break argued the California
Environmental Quality Act should be amended to provide more focused remedies other
than entirely voiding and environmental decision. Mr. Break wrote to Ms. Harris:
“[G]iven the cost associated with the delay of any public or private works project and the
sensitivity of many such projects to any delay, I think it is appropriate to consider some
statutory direction to the courts recognizing there are appropriate situations where the
relief granted upon a finding of [a California Environmental Quality Act] violation
should be something less drastic than mandated voidance of the decision approving the
project. In many situations, an expedited reconsideration of the decision by the lead
agency under court supervision could minimize delay while fully meeting the letter and
intent of [the California Environmental Quality Act].” Thereafter, Senate Bill No. 1079
passed the upper house. No action was taken at this time on Mr. Break‟s letter.
On May 8, 1984, Senate Bill No. 1079, while pending in the Assembly, was
amended to propose the adoption of section 21168.9. As it did later upon ultimate
passage, the newly drafted Legislative Counsel‟s Digest stated in part: “The act specifies
procedures and requirements to challenge a determination, finding, or decision of a public
agency under the act, including petitions to the court for an order of administrative
mandate, as specified. [¶] This bill would require a court, if it finds, as a result of a trial,
hearing, or remand from an appellate court that a determination, finding, or decision of a
public agency has been made without compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, to enter an order by the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate including
33
one or more specified orders specifying what action by the public agency is necessary to
comply with the act. . . . [¶] . . . The bill would require the court to retain jurisdiction
over the public agency‟s proceedings by way of a return to the peremptory writ until the
court has determined that the public agency has complied with the act. The bill would
also declare that its provisions do not authorize a court to direct any public agency to
exercise its discretion in any particular . . . way.” (Italics deleted.) As can be noted, in
terms of the remand from an appellate court language, the Legislative Counsel‟s Digest
endeavors to summarize the text appearing in section 21168.9, subdivision (a). The
Assembly adopted the entirely rewritten Senate Bill No. 1079 and returned it to the upper
house on May 29, 1983. The Legislative Counsel‟s Digest is the only document prepared
while the legislation was pending in the Assembly that sheds any light on Legislature‟s
intentions in enacting Senate Bill No. 1079.
Only one Senate committee report discusses the language of section 21168.9,
subdivision (a) after Senate Bill No. 1079 was amended in the Assembly. An unfinished
business report prepared by the Senate Democratic Caucus reiterated the language
concerning “remand from an appellate court” but shed no light on the subject. (Sen.
Democratic Caucus, unfinished business rep. on Sen. Bill No. 1079 as amended May 8,
1984, June 7, 1983, pp. 1-2.) On June 21, 1984, the Senate unanimously refused to
concur in the Assembly amendments which in essence rewrote Senate Bill No. 1072 to
propose section 21168.9. (7 Sen. Journal (1983-1984 Reg. Sess.) p. 12134.) A
Conference Committee was appointed which recommended adoption of the Assembly
amendments to Senate Bill No. 1079 which proposed enactment of section 21168.9.
34
Both the Senate and Assembly unanimously adopted the Conference Committee report
and both houses unanimously voted to enact section 21168.9. (10 Assem. J. (1983-1984
Reg. Sess.) p. 19010; 8 Sen. J. (1983-1984 Reg. Sess.) p. 14273.) There is little of
consequence in the committee reports or other legislative documents that sheds light on
the Legislature‟s expectations in enacting the remand from an appellate court language.
More critically, nothing in the Senate Bill No. 1079‟s sparse legislative history of which
alters the normal processing of environmental litigation on direct appeal as is our case
here. Nothing in Senate Bill No. 1079‟s legislative documents suggest intermediate
appellate courts were granted, in cases on direct appeal, authority to issue their own writ
of mandate. And nothing in those papers suggest a legislative intention, when a case is
on direct appeal, to grant us the authority to supervise the implementation of a writ of
mandate.
D. Other Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and Appellate Practice
Militate Against Holding that on Direct Appeal We May Issue a Writ Of Mandate and
Supervise Its Implementation.
1. Other legal provisions concerning trial court jurisdiction over California
Environmental Quality Act enforcement and administrative mandate procedure
Other legal and procedural provisions are inconsistent with the legislative intent to
permit an appellate court, on direct appeal, to issue a writ of mandate directly to the lead
agency. First, we examine California Environmental Quality Act enforcement practice in
1984 when section 21168.9 was enacted. Since 1972, if a litigant desires to challenge an
environmental impact report‟s certification, the Legislature has required a Code of Civil
35
Procedure section 1094.5 administrative mandate petition be filed. And the practice has
always been to file a Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 administrative mandate
petition in superior court. In 1970, the California Environmental Quality Act was
adopted with the enactment of new sections 2000 through 21151. (Stats. 1970, ch. 1433,
§ 1, pp. 2780-2783.) Former section 21100, subdivision (a) required a “detailed
statement by a responsible state official” be written describing a proposed action‟s
environmental impact. The 1970 legislation made no reference to judicial enforcement of
the new environmental legislation. In 1972, sections 21060 through 21172.5 were
adopted which substantially amended the 1970 version of the California Environmental
Quality Act. (Stats. 1972, ch. 1154, § 1, pp. 2271-2280.) Former section 21168 required
that any action challenging a public agency‟s determination under the California
Environmental Quality Act must be filed in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure
section 1094.5. (Stats., ch. 1154, § 15, p. 2278.)
As it was in effect in 1972, Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 had language
which was solely consistent with the filing of administrative mandate petitions in the trial
court. (Stats.1949, ch. 358, § 1, pp. 638-639.) For example; former Code of Civil
Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (a) required that the petition be heard by “the court
sitting without a jury”; referred to the filing of the “respondent‟s points and authorities”
along with the administrative record (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (a)); the entry of
judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subds. (d)(-(e)); the potential entry of an order
staying the administrative decision until the filing of a notice of appeal (Code Civ. Proc.,
36
§ 1094.5, subd. (f); specifying the duration of the stay by operation of law after the filing
of a notice of appeal. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (f).)
And any filing in a trial court would have been the superior court. In 1972, neither
the municipal or justice courts had jurisdiction to hear administrative mandate petitions.
As can be noted, this language is inconsistent with the direct filing of a Code of Civil
Procedure section 1094.5 administrative mandate petition in an appellate court. (As we
will explain later, we do not foreclose that possibility. But our point is that the practice in
1984 when section 21168.9 was enacted was for administrative mandate petitions to be
filed in the superior court.)
We now turn to the legislative events in 1984 when section 21168.9, with its
remand from an appellate court language, was adopted. The 1984 version of Code of
Civil Procedure section 1094.5, the enforcement provision for California Environmental
Quality Act, continued with the references to: a “court sitting without a jury”;
“respondent‟s points and authorities”; the entry of a judgment; and stays pending appeal.
No statute explicitly provided for filing a mandate petition to challenge an
environmental impact report certification in the Courts of Appeal. Section 21168.6
specified, as it does now, that a mandate petition “against the Public Utilities
Commission” involving California Environmental Quality Act compliance must be filed
in the Supreme Court. (Stats. 1972, ch. 1154, § 1, p. 2278.) Also, in 1984, the
Legislature adopted section 21167.6, subdivisions (a) through (c)3 which imposed time
requirements for the filing of the administrative record with the court. The sole exception
was for suits against the Public Utilities Commission. (Stats 1984, ch. 1514, § 12, pp.
5342-5343.) But as adopted in 1984, section 21167.6, subdivision (d) also imposed time
limits for the preparation of a clerk‟s transcript on appeal. And, section 21167.6,
subdivision (d) permitted the use of an appendix on appeal. And section 21167.6,
3 As adopted in 1984, section 21776.8, subdivisions (a) through (c), the provisions relating to the filing of the administrative record with the “court,” stated: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in all actions brought pursuant to Section 21167, except those involving the Public Utilities Commission: [¶] (a) At the time the action is filed, the petitioner shall file a request that the respondent public agency prepare the record of proceedings relating to the subject of the action. The request, together with the petition, shall be served upon the public agency not later than 10 business days after the action is filed. [¶] (b) The public agency shall prepare and certify the record of proceedings not later than 60 days after the request specified in subdivision (a) is served upon the public agency. The parties shall pay any costs or fees imposed for the preparation of the record of proceedings in conformance with any law or rule of court. The petitioner may elect to prepare the record of proceedings or the parties may agree to an alternative method of preparation of the record of proceedings, subject to the certification of its accuracy by the public agency, within the time specified in this subdivision. [¶] (c) The time limit established by subdivision (b) may be extended only upon stipulation of all parties will been properly served in the action or upon order of the court. Extensions shall be liberally granted by the court when the size of the record of proceedings renders infeasible compliance with the time limits specified in subdivision (b) There is no limit on the number of extensions which may be granted by the court, but no single extension shall exceed 60 days unless the court determines that a longer extension is in the public interest.” (Stats. 1984, ch. 1514, § 12, pp. 5342-5343.) 38
subdivisions (d) through (f) imposed limits on briefing and scheduling requirements on
appeal. (Stats. 1984, ch. 1514, § 12, p. 5343.4) The 1984 legislative record indicates the
Legislature was aware, when section 21168.9 was adopted, that the practice was for
environmental impact report litigation to be commenced in the superior court.
2. Appellate courts‟ powers and practice on direct appeal
There is no evidence the Legislature intended when an environmental impact
report‟s certification was litigated on appeal to alter the established procedures for
remitting jurisdiction of the trial court. As noted, now, as in 1984, an appellate court‟s
authority extended to affirmance or reversal and modification of an appeal from judgment
or order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 43.) And after making one of those decisions, affirmance,
reversal, modification or any combination thereof, the Courts of Appeal are required
remit the cause to court from which the appeal was taken. (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., § 912;
see Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 701.) These are well
established principles of appellate practice. The Legislature did not expressly change
these rules in the case of environmental litigation. When section 21168.9, subdivision (a)
was adopted, the Legislature did not expressly grant us the power to issue a writ of
mandate.
4 As adopted in 1984, section 21167.6, subdivision (d), the provision relating to preparation of the record on appeal, stated: “(d) The clerk of the superior court shall prepare and certify the clerk‟s transcript on appeal not less than 60 days after the notice designating the papers or records to be included in the clerk‟s transcript is filed with the Superior Court, provided that the party or parties may pay any costs or fees for preparation of the clerk‟s transcript imposed in conformance with any law or rules of court. Nothing in contained in this subdivision shall preclude election to proceed pursuant to Rule 5.1 of the California Rules of Court.” 39
And, there is no basis for implying the Legislature intended in enacting section
21168.9 to modify the well-established procedures for appeals digested in the
immediately foregoing paragraph. Stated differently, we may not imply a repeal or
modification of the Code of Civil Procedure sections 43 and 912 remittitur requirements
because of the enactment of section 21168.9. Repeals by implication are disfavored.
(People v. Siko (1988) 45 Cal.3d 820, 824 [“As a general rule of statutory construction,
of course, repeal by implication is disfavored.”]; Flores v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd.
(1974) 11 Cal.3d 171, 176 [“[A]ll presumptions are against a repeal by implication.”].)
Our Supreme Court has explained: “Absent an express declaration of legislative intent,
we will find an implied repeal „only when there is no rational basis for harmonizing the
two potentially conflicting statutes [citation], and the statutes are “irreconcilable, clearly
repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent operation.”„“ (Garcia
v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 476-477, quoting In re White (1969) 1 Cal.3d 207,
212.)
This presumption against the implied repeal of Code of Civil Procedure sections
43 and 912 is of special emphasis given the historic nature of the structure of the
California appellate process. In 1850, the Legislature specified the powers of the
Supreme Court and the role of the remittitur, “The Supreme Court may reverse, affirm, or
modify, the judgment or order appealed from, and its judgment shall be remitted as soon
as practicable, after judgment pronounced, to the Court below, to be enforced according
to law.” (Stats. 1850, ch. 14, § 7, p. 57; see Grogan v. Ruckle (1850) 1 Cal. 193, 194.)
Later in 1850, the Legislature enacted “AN ACT to regulate proceedings in Civil Cases
40
in the District Court, the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco, and Supreme Court
which: reiterated the power of the Supreme Court to “reverse, affirm, or modify any
judgment, order or determination, appealed from in whole or in part”; directed that the
Supreme Court‟s judgment or order “be remitted to the District Court”; and required,
“When the judgment of the Supreme Court is remitted to the Court below, the clerk of the
Supreme Court shall certify the costs of the appeal . . . .” (Stats. 1850, ch. 142, §§ 280,
283, pp. 428, 454.) In 1851, the Legislature once again defined the powers of the
Supreme Court thusly, “This Court may reverse, affirm, or modify the judgment or order
appealed from, in the respect mentioned in the notice of appeal, as to any and all of the
parties, and may set aside, confirm, or modify any or all of the proceedings subsequent
to, and dependent upon, such judgment or order; and may, if necessary or proper, order a
new trial.” (Stats. 1851, ch. 1, § 8, p. 10.)
The Code of Civil Procedure was enacted in 1872. (See First Nat. Bank of Santa
Ana v. Kinslow (1937) 8 Cal.2d 339, 343; Hogoboom v. Superior Court (1996) 51
Cal.App.4th 653, 660.) As enacted in 1872, Code of Civil Procedure section 45 stated:
“The Court may reverse, affirm, or modify any order or judgment appealed from, and
may direct the proper judgment or order to be entered, or direct a trial or further
proceeding be had. Its judgment must be remitted to the Court from which the appeal
was taken.” (1 Ann. Code Civ. Proc., § 45 (1st ed. 1872, Haymond & Burch, commrs-
annotators) p. 49.) In 1880, former Code of Civil Procedure section 45 was moved to
section 53. The 1880 version of former Code of Civil Procedure section 45 maintained
the “affirm, reverse, or modify” language and concluded, “Its judgment in appealed cases
41
shall be remitted to the Court from which the appeal was taken.” (Stats. 1880, ch. 35, §
53, p. 25 (Amends. to Codes).) In 1933, former Civil Procedure section 53 was amended
to clarify that the power “to affirm, reverse, or modify” extended to the Court of Appeal.
As in the case of the 1880 version, the 1933 amendment explicitly stated the judgment in
an appealed case was to be remitted to the trial court. (Stats.1933, ch. 743, § 6, p. 1807.)
In 1967, former Civil Procedure section 53 was renumbered as section 43 and enacted to
state as it does now. (Stats. 1967, ch. 17, § 5, p. 827.) Since 1850, the powers of
appellate courts have been limited “to affirm, reverse, or modify” judgments or orders
and the decision on appeal is to be remitted to the trial court.
Finally, the department and developer argue that we should somehow supervise
compliance with any writ of mandate we can issue. Section 21168.9, subdivision (b)
explains who retains jurisdiction to supervise a writ of mandate issued to enforce
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, “The trial court shall retain
jurisdiction over the public agency‟s proceedings by way of a return to the peremptory
writ until the court has determined that the public agency has complied with this
division.” The Legislature has explicitly vested the trial court with the authority to retain
jurisdiction to ensure the department has complied with the California Environmental
Quality Act. Any suggestion we can retain jurisdiction to supervise any return to the writ
of mandate is contradicted by the express language of section 21168.9, subdivision (b).
E. Conclusion
Nothing in the language of 21168.9, subdivision (a), the events leading to its
adoption or other provisions of law permit us, on direct appeal, to issue the writ of
42
mandate. That is a matter for a trial court. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude we do
not have the authority to issue our own writ of mandate. Rather, our duty is to decide
issues pertinent to the writ of mandate‟s scope, insofar as possible, and then remit the
matter to the trial court. And we further conclude our Supreme Court directed us to
determine what language should be utilized by the trial court.
Nothing we have said herein applies to cases where an original proceeding is
initially commenced in the Court of Appeal. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 10; see Raven v.
Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 340.) No original proceeding has been filed with this
court. Similarly, we are not discussing specified environmental challenges filed against
the Public Utilities Commission which are filed in our Supreme Court. (§21168.6.)
Further, nothing we have said applies to cases where a supersedeas petition is filed and
conditions are imposed which can lead to an early compliance with environmental
requirements. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.112(d)(1) [“The court may issue the writ on
any conditions it deems just.”]; County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 802-
814 [supersedeas petition deemed to be mandate petition and the Court of Appeal issued
a writ of mandate ordering preparation of an environmental impact report and limiting
ground water pumping].) No supersedeas petition has been filed with us. Finally, in a
related supersedeas scenario, nothing we have written applies to issue of injunctions
designed to preserve the status quo so as to maintain the jurisdiction of this court. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 923 [“The provisions of this chapter shall not limit the power of a reviewing
court or of a judge thereof to stay proceedings during the pendency of an appeal or to
issue a writ of supersedeas or to suspend or modify an injunction during the pendency of
43
an appeal or to make any order appropriate to preserve the status quo, the effectiveness of
the judgment subsequently to be entered, or otherwise in aid of its jurisdiction.”]; People
ex rel. S. F. Bay etc. Com. v. Town of Emeryville (1968) 69 Cal.2d 533, 537 [Supreme
Court‟s inherent powers permit it to issue an injunction in aid of its own jurisdiction and
to preserve the status quo]; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1976) 61 Cal.App.4th
91, 100-101 [Court of Appeal uses injunctive order powers to reset an interim pumping
rate from the subsurface pool of the Owens Valley Groundwater Basin].) No specific
injunctive relief request has been presented to us. This is not merely a case involving an
injunction but the: certification of an environmental impact; approval of a streambed
alteration agreement; approval of the resource management and development plan;
adoption of the Spineflower Conservation Plan and streambed alteration agreement; and
issuance of two incidental take permits. Our analysis is limited to the argument that,
based on section 21168.9, we should issue a writ of mandate and supervise the
department‟s compliance therewith. Section 21168.9 does not empower us to do so.
Upon remittitur issuance, the trial court is to proceed in compliance with section
21168.9. We have reversed the judgment except as to the greenhouse gas emission and
BIO-44 and BIO-46 issues. This will entail at a minimum setting aside those two
portions of the environmental impact report. But beyond that, we leave further matters in
the trial court‟s good hands. Whether to maintain the injunction against any development
in effect or partially certify the environmental impact report depends on competing
factual issues including section 21168.9, subdivision (b) severance issues. (LandValue
77 LLC v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 675,
44
680-683; Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173-
1181.) One of the issues, changing the bridge design over the Santa Clara River so no
threespine unarmored stickleback are taken, may be a comparatively uncomplicated
engineering decision. But the other issue, the greenhouse gas emission question may be
very complicated. (See Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 62 Cal.4th at pp. 225-
231.) It is speculatively injudicious for us to decide these matters and that is why the
scope of our remittitur is narrowly drawn.
VI. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part. First, the judgment is
affirmed as to the finding that mitigation measures BIO-44 and BIO-46 violate Fish and
Game Code section 5515. Second, the judgment is reversed as the finding that the
selection of the Health and Safety Code section 38850 greenhouse gas emission reduction
goals was an abuse of discretion. Upon remittitur issuance, the trial court shall find the
department could select the Health and Safety Code section 38850 greenhouse gas
emissions reduction goals as a significance criterion. Third, the judgment is reversed as
to the finding that the department could not use a hypothetical business as usual scenario
for evaluating greenhouse gas emission impacts. Upon remittitur issuance, the trial court
is to enter a finding that the department can use a hypothetical business as usual scenario
for evaluating greenhouse gas emission impacts. Fourth, the judgment is affirmed as to
the trial court‟s ruling there is no substantial evidence the project‟s greenhouse gas
emissions will not result in a cumulatively significant environmental impact. Upon
remittitur issuance, the trial court is to enter a finding that the there is no substantial
45
evidence the project‟s greenhouse gas emissions will not result in a cumulatively
significant environmental impact. Fifth, the trial court‟s remaining findings concerning
Native American resources, San Fernando Spineflower conservation, reliance on the
specific plan and steelhead smolt are reversed. Once the remittitur issues, the trial court
is to issue its writ of mandate as specified in parts II, III and IV(E). Further, the trial
court is to proceed in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21168.9 including
fashioning appropriate injunctive orders including any changes to the permits if
necessary. All parties are to bear their own costs of appeal.
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION
TURNER, P. J.
We concur:
KRIEGLER, J.
BAKER, J.
46
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the Department of Fish and Wildlife failed to provide substantial evidence to support its finding that the project's greenhouse gas emissions would have no significant impact, and that certain mitigation measures for the unarmored threespine stickleback violated the Fish and Game Code. The court also determined it lacked authority to supervise compliance with a writ of mandate on direct appeal and affirmed the Department's conclusions regarding Native American cultural resources and steelhead smolt.
Issues
Whether the court has authority to supervise compliance with a writ of mandate on direct appeal.
Whether the environmental impact report's greenhouse gas emissions analysis is supported by substantial evidence.
Whether mitigation measures for the unarmored threespine stickleback violate the Fish and Game Code.
Whether the Department's responses to comments regarding Native American cultural resources and steelhead smolt were legally sufficient.
Disposition. Reversed in part; affirmed in part.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“we conclude we do not have that authority since we are reviewing this case on direct appeal.”
“the [environmental impact report]‟s analysis fails to support its conclusion of no significant impact.”
“mitigation measures BIO-44 and BIO-46 violate the Fish and Game Code section 5515 prohibition against the taking of the unarmored threespine stickleback.”