Save Civita Because Sudberry Won't v. City of San Diego

72 Cal.App.5th 957

288 Cal.Rptr.3d 21

SAVE CIVITA BECAUSE SUDBERRY WON'T, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant and Respondent.

D077591

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Filed December 16, 2021

Certified for Partial Publication.^*

Briggs Law Corporation, Cory J. Briggs, San Diego, and Janna M. Ferraro for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Mara W. Elliott, City Attorney, George F. Schaefer, Assistant City Attorney, and Lynn M. Beekman and Benjamin P. Syz, Deputy City Attorneys, for Defendant and Respondent.

AARON, Acting P.J.

I.INTRODUCTION

The City of San Diego (City) certified an environmental impact report (EIR) for the "Serra Mesa Community Plan [SMCP] Amendment Roadway Connection Project" (Project) and approved an amendment to the SMCP and the City's General Plan to reflect the proposed roadway.¹ The proposed four-lane major road—together with a median, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian pathways—would run in a north/south direction between Phyllis Place in Serra Mesa to Via Alta / Franklin Ridge Road in Mission Valley.² Via Alta and Franklin Ridge Road are contained within Civita, a partially built out mixed-use development that the City approved in 2008.³

Save Civita Because Sudberry Won't ("Save Civita") filed a combined petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief (Petition / Complaint) against the City, challenging the City's certification of the EIR and approval of the Project.⁴ In its Petition / Complaint and briefing, Save Civita contended that the City violated the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") ( Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. ),⁵ the Planning and Zoning Law ( Gov. Code, § 65000 et seq. ), and the public's due-process and fair-hearing rights.⁶ The trial court denied the Petition / Complaint in its entirety and entered a judgment in favor of the City.

On appeal, Save Civita raises four claims related to the City's certification of the EIR for the Project. First, Save Civita claims that the City violated Guidelines section 15088.5, subdivision (g)⁷ in failing to summarize revisions made in the Project's recirculated draft EIR (RE-DEIR). Save Civita also claims that the Project's final EIR (FEIR) was deficient because it failed to adequately analyze, as an alternative to the Project, a proposal to amend the MVCP to remove the planned road from that community plan. Save Civita further contends that the FEIR is deficient because it failed to adequately analyze the Project's traffic impacts. Specifically, Save Civita maintains that the FEIR failed to disclose the true margin of error associated with a traffic projection in the FEIR and "ignored obvious traffic hazards," (capitalization and boldface omitted) that the Project would create on Via Alta and Franklin Ridge Road. Save Civita also claims that the FEIR failed to adequately discuss the Project's inconsistency with the General Plan's goal of creating pedestrian-friendly communities.

In addition to its EIR / CEQA claims, Save Civita maintains that the Project will have a deleterious effect on the pedestrian-friendly Civita community and that the City therefore violated the Planning and Zoning law in concluding that the Project is consistent with the City's General Plan.

Finally, Save Civita maintains that the City acted in a quasi-adjudicatory capacity in certifying the FEIR and approving the Project and that a City Council member violated the public's procedural due process rights by improperly advocating for the Project prior to its approval.

In a published section of this opinion we conclude that the City did not violate Guidelines section 15088.5, subdivision (g) in failing to summarize revisions made to the Project's previously circulated programmatic draft EIR (PDEIR) in the RE-DEIR. (See pt. III.A.1, post. ) In a second published section, we conclude that the City Council acted in a quasi-legislative capacity in certifying the FEIR and approving the Project, and that this determination forecloses Save Civita's procedural due process claim. (See pt. III.C, post. ) In unpublished sections of this opinion, we reject the remainder of Save Civita's contentions. We affirm the trial court's judgment in favor of the City in its entirety.

II.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Civita

1. The Civita development

In 2005, Civita's developer sought approvals from the City to develop a large mixed-use development in Mission Valley that would contain residences, public recreational spaces, open lands, and retail and office space.

The FEIR⁸ described the Civita development in part as follows:

"[The Civita] site encompasses approximately 225 acres immediately south of Phyllis Place. The [Civita development] includes ... a mixed-use, walkable community including residential, commercial, and parks and open space development."

The FEIR also described Civita in part as follows:

"The [Civita EIR] stated that the proposed project would include a development cap that would prohibit the project from exceeding 4,780 residential units, 603,000 square feet of retail space, and 620,000 square feet of office/business park uses. The [Civita development] would also include 31.8 acres of public and private parks, civic uses, open space and trails, and an optional school site. Construction of ... the southwestern portion of the site has been completed. Land uses within this area include currently occupied residences."

The Civita development is located primarily within the MVCP area, bordered on the south by Friars Road, on the north by Phyllis Place (within the SMCP area), on the east by interstate I-805, and on the west by Mission Center Road.

2. The Civita EIR's analysis of a potential road connection between Phyllis Place and Via Alta / Franklin Ridge Road

The Civita EIR analyzed a potential road connection from Phyllis Place to Via Alta / Franklin Ridge Road. Specifically, Alternative 4 of the Civita EIR—"Road Connection to Phyllis Place"—provided an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the road connection. The analysis included tables describing projected traffic conditions with and without the proposed connection, which the Civita EIR summarized as follows:

"As shown in [various tables], project traffic under this alternative would impact roadway segments and intersections similar to the proposed project. However, due to the different distribution of traffic associated with the Phyllis Place connection, traffic impacts under this alternative would occur at different locations; in other locations, impacts would be avoided. Although significant impacts are comparable, in general the redistribution of traffic to the Phyllis Place / I-805 interchange is beneficial to existing Mission Valley circulation streets where total vehicular trips are reduced, such as for Friars Road between SR-163 and I-15; Mission Center Road from Friars Road to I-8; and Qualcomm Way from Friars Road to I-8."

3. The City Council's approval of the Civita development and its direction to analyze a community plan amendment showing the road connection

In October 2008, the City Council approved the Civita development. As part of its approval, the City Council adopted a resolution (R-304297), directing staff to analyze an amendment to the SMCP and the City's General Plan to include a street connection between Phyllis Place and Friars Road.⁹ The resolution provided in relevant part:

"Council directs staff to analyze the following issues in relation to the aforementioned street connection and land use plan amendments:

"1. Whether police and fire response times would be improved with the road connection.

"2. Whether the road connection could serve as an emergency evacuation route.

"3. Whether it is feasible to make the road available for emergency access only.

"4. Whether pedestrian and bicycle access would be improved by the street connection."

B. The Project

1. The PDEIR

In April 2016, the City issued the PDEIR. The PDEIR indicated that the Project was the adoption of an amendment "to the [SMCP] ... to include a street connection from Phyllis Place in Serra Mesa southward to the [Civita] Specific Plan area in Mission Valley."

2. The RE-DEIR

The City issued the RE-DEIR in March 2017. As discussed in greater detail in part III.A.1, post , the City provided the following explanation for its decision to recirculate an EIR:

"In light of the public comments received during public review of the [PDEIR], the construction of the roadway connection was determined to be foreseeable; therefore, a project-level analysis^[10] was conducted and included within the [RE-DEIR]. Further evaluation of the subsequent actions necessary to implement and construct the roadway connection was completed.

"This revised and recirculated [RE-DEIR] analyzes impacts at a project level to ensure that all potential significant environmental effects associated with the [P]roject are disclosed."

3. The FEIR

In August 2017, the City issued the FEIR for the Project. The FEIR describes the Project as follows:

"The proposed [P]roject consists of construction and operation of a four-lane major street, complete with bicycle lanes and pedestrian pathways, extending from Phyllis Place in Serra Mesa southward to Via Alta and Franklin Ridge Road in Mission Valley [citation].

"The proposed [P]roject would require an amendment to the [SMCP]. This amendment would require map and text changes to the plan to include the roadway connection as a four-lane major street and revise the Street Classification and the Bikeways and Pedestrian Walkway figures in the currently adopted [SMCP]."

4. Public review of the Project

The FEIR contains more than a hundred separate letters from the public commenting on the RE-DEIR. The comments, and the City's responses, span nearly a thousand pages in the administrative record.

In addition to these comments and responses in the FEIR, two community planning groups reviewed the Project. In May of 2017, the Serra Mesa Community Planning Group (SMPG) voted...