Hilltop Grp., Inc. v. Cty. of San Diego

318 Cal.Rptr.3d 336

HILLTOP GROUP, INC., et. al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et. al., Defendants and Respondents.

D081124

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1.

Filed February 16, 2024

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joel R, Wohlfeil, Judge. Reversed and remanded. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2021-00023554-CU-TT-CTL)

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance, David P. Hubbard and Kendall F. Teal for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel·, and Joshua M. Heinlein, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents.

O’ROURKE, J.

INTRODUCTION

The County of San Diego (County) designated a parcel of land for industrial use as part of its General Plan Update (GPU) in 2011. Plaintiffs, Hilltop Group, Inc. and ADJ Holdings, LLC (collectively Hilltop Group), applied to develop the North County Environmental Resources Project (NCER Project), a "construction, demolition, and inert debris … recycling facility," on the land. Based on its proximity to nearby residential communities, the NCER Project faced significant public opposition by community members homeowners associations, and the nearby City of Escondido, all of whom expressed concern over the project’s potential environmental impacts.

County staff required Hilltop Group to conduct environmental studies as part of its initial environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)¹ (CEQA). After Hilltop Group submitted a draft environmental impact report and supplemental environmental studies, staff for the County concluded that the NCER Project qualified for a CEQA exemption pursuant to section 21083.3 and its companion regulation, Guidelines section 15183. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.)² The County reached this conclusion through a Guidelines section 15183 exemption checklist that found the NCER Project was consistent with the GPU and did not impose significant and peculiar environmental impacts not already contemplated by the environmental impact report prepared for the GPU.

Multiple groups appealed the approval of the CEQA exemption to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing at which staff for the County’s Planning and Development Services (PDS) presented findings that the NCER Project qualified for the streamlined environmental review process in Guidelines section 15183. Despite its own staff’s recommendation that the appeals should be denied, the Board of Supervisors voted to grant the appeals, finding that the NCER Project would result in peculiar environmental effects that would not be mitigated by uniform policies and procedures.

Hilltop Group filed a petition for writ of mandate in the San Diego Superior Court, and the court entered judgment in favor of the Board of Supervisors. Hilltop Group appeals the judgment and argues the Board of Supervisors did not proceed in a manner required by law and that their findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Hilltop Group contends the NCER Project will not result in any significant and peculiar environmental effects that were not already evaluated by the program EIR for the GPU. The County argues that the Guidelines section 15183 exemption is not applicable to the NCER Project because the record supports a finding that the project will result in significant environmental impacts.

As we shall discuss, we conclude Guidelines section 15183 is applicable to the NCER Project because the project is consistent with the GPU and its related zoning designation for which a program EIR was certified. Thus, environmental review of file project shall be limited to those effects enumerated in Guidelines section 15183, subdivision (b)(1) through (4). The Board of Supervisors did not appropriately limit environmental review to only those project-specific peculiar impacts when they directed the preparation of an EIR. Moreover, we conclude the record does not support file Board of Supervisors’ findings that the NCER Project’s "peculiar" effects will not be substantially mitigated by previously adopted uniform policies and procedures.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. 2011 GPU and Program Environmental Impact Report

Land use in the County of San Diego is governed by a comprehensive general plan. (Gov. Code, § 65300 et seq. ["the legislative body of each county … shall adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county"].) The County updated its general plan in 2011, adopting the GPU to serve as "a blueprint for future land development in the unincorporated County that meets community desires and balances the environmental protection goals with the need for housing, agriculture, infrastructure, and economic vitality." To balance its goals and guide future development, the GPU established land use categories and a corresponding land use map. The land use designations included, among others, residential, commercial, and industrial.

When the County adopted the GPU, the Board of Supervisors certified a program environmental impact report (PEIR) to address the GPU’s potential environmental impacts. The "series of actions analyzed in th[e] [PEIR] include[d] potential future development" resulting from the build-out and implementation of the GPU. The PEIR explained that it was intended to cover "subsequent projects, tiering, and/or streamlining future documentation to the maximum extent allowed by State law." Therefore, subsequent projects and activities within the scope of the PEIR, found by the County to have "no new effects" or require "no new mitigation measures" would not require "further environmental documentation."

However, the PEIR cautioned, "[w]hile the [PEIR] intends to identify potential impacts that would result from [the GPU] implementation, the level of analysis is not detailed to the level of site specificity, nor is it intended to be accurate to this level of specificity." Therefore, "[i]n most eases, future project-specific impact analyses would be required to determine whether a specific development project would or would not result in a potentially significant impact on the environment, such as impacts to biological resources, traffic, or air quality."

The PEIR determined that development from the GPU’s land use designations may cause significant environmental impacts that would require mitigation measures. It included an analysis of feasible mitigation measures intended to reduce or avoid the environmental impacts created by the GPU and its related development. Even with the implementation of mitigation measures, the PEIR found significant and unavoidable impacts in numerous environmental areas, including, inter alia, aesthetics, air quality, noise, and traffic.

II. NCER Project Description and Application

In 2012, Hilltop Group submitted a project proposal to the County for the development of the NCER Project. Hilltop Group described the NCER Project as a recycling facility that would process and recycle trees, logs, wood, construction debris, asphalt, and other inert material from construction projects. The project was projected to process 20 tons of material per day and export 48 tons of repurposed material per day.

The NCER Project site was designated by the GPU as "High Impact Industrial" with a zoning classification of "General Impact Industrial." Recycling facilities such as the NCER Project are permitted on land zoned as "General Impact Industrial." Thus, Hilltop Group’s proposed use of the land was consistent with the County’s land use designation in the GPU.

The NCER Project plan included an open space easement intended to protect 44 acres of natural habitat, and the project was projected to maintain visual separation from local landmarks. The project site is located directly west of Interstate 15, in a valley with steep slopes, and adjacent to parcels of land zoned as "semi-rural residential." The following map depicts the location of the project site relative to nearby residential communities.

318 Cal.Rptr.3d 346.bmp

III. NCER Project Environmental Studies

Following the submission of their project proposal, Hilltop Group asked the County to proceed through the use of a mitigated negative declaration in March 2014. A site plan meeting for the NCER Project was conducted in April 2014 and was attended by representatives of Hilltop Group and County staff. The meeting notes reflect that Hilltop Group asked County staff to rely on the PEIR to analyze the project, but the staff responded that "the GPU’s EIR is a programmatic EIR and a project specific EIR is more detailed."

Thereafter, in September 2014, the County conducted an initial CEQA study of the NCER Project. The study included a comprehensive description of the project and acknowledged that the NCER Project was consistent with the GPU and its related zoning designation. The study also included a checklist of categories that the County analyzed to determine the project’s potential environmental effects. The checklist found potentially significant environmental impacts in the areas of aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, hydrology and water quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise. The study concluded that further analyses were required to determine the extent of the environmental impacts.

Based on its findings in the initial study, the County issued a notice of preparation of an EIR and denied Hilltop Group’s request to proceed by a mitigated negative declaration. Neither the initial study, nor the notice of preparation of an EIR, indicate whether the NCER Project was evaluated for an exemption under Guidelines section 15183. In a letter to Hilltop Group, a planning manager with the County indicated that an EIR was required, in part, because of the neighboring property owners’ concerns regarding potential environ- mental impacts, including the effect of the NCER Project on...