____ Respondents. EUGENE S. WILSON, ESQ. (107104) Law Office of Eugene Wilson 3502 Tanager Avenue Davis, California 95616-7531 ‘Super Pr ED. Phone: 530-756-6141 rounty of Place Facsimile: 530-756-5930 OCT 26 2016 Attorney for California Clean Energy Committee ‘cer By: S. Marlatte, Deputy THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER case nuMBEB GV 0038578 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ‘ATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CLEAN ENERGY COMMITTEE, a California nonprofit corporation, Petitioner, COUNTY OF PLACER, a political [CEQA ACTION] subdivision of the State of California; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, RRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, & California corporation, MOUNTAINSIDE PARTNERS, LLC, a limited liability company; MVWP Development, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES $1-100, inclusive, ties in Interest, Petitioner California Clean Energy Committee, by and through its attorney, alleges as follows GENERAL ALL ONS 1. Respondent County of Placer is a political subdivision of the State of California. ‘The project described herein is located in the unincorporated area of Placer County approximately five Petition for Writ of Mandate - 11}| miles north of Lake Tahoe on State Route 267 (SR 267). The county is the primary agency 2 responsible under California law for the project and as sucit is the lead agency under the California 3 || Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) responsible for preparing the environmental impact report and 4} related documents including the presentation of project alternatives and the identification and design 5 }) of mitigation for the significant impacts of the project. 6 2. The project which is the subject of this petition is the Martis Valley West Parcel 7|| Specific Plan (MVWPSP or project), which would specify new land use controls for 7,428 acres of 8 || coniferous forest land located on both sides of SR 267. The West Parcel consists of 1,052 acres 9 }} located southwest of SR 267 and the East Parcel consists of 6,376 acres located northeast of SR 267. 10 |} ‘The project would rezone 662 acres of the West Parcel to allow residential and commercial 11 || development. The remainder of the West Parcel and the East Parcel would be zoned Timberland 12 |} Production Zone (TPZ). ‘The East Parcel would be permanently preserved as open space. The 13 ]| specific plan provides development standards for parcel layout, buildings, and facilities as well as 14 |} design guidelines for architecture, landscaping and other project elements on the West Parcel Is 3. The project approvals include adoption of the Martis Valley West Parcel Specific 16 || Plan, adoption of an ordinance approving development standards for the project, approval of design 17|} guidelines, amending the Martis Valley Community Plan land use diagram to incorporate the 18 |] MVWPSP land use designation, adopting an ordinance re-zoning 662 acres of the West Parcel from 19 |] TPZ ts SPL-MVWPSP, adoption of an ordinance rezoning the remainder of the West Parcel to TPZ. 20 |] and 670 acres of the East parcel to TPZ, approval ofa large-lot vesting tentative subdivision map, 21 |) and adoption of an ordinance approving the development agreement pertaining to the MVWPSP. 2 4, Petitioner California Clean Energy Committee (CCEC or Committee) is a nonprofit, 23 || corporation incorporated in 2008 under the faws of the State of California maintaining its principal 24 || place of business in the City of Davis, California. The corporation advocates on behalf of the 25 |} general public throughout the State of California for energy conservation, the development of clean 26 |} energy resources, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, sustainable transportation, smart growth, and 27]] related issues. 28 5. CCEC has been advocating on behalf of the general public for environmental Petition for Writ of Mandate - 220 conservation in the Tahoe Basin since 2011, In December, 2015, CCEC prevailed before the Third District Court of Appeal over the County of Placer in CEQA litigation conceming the county's failure to analyze the wildfire evacuation impacts resulting from the Homewood Mountain Resort Area Master Plan. 6. Over forty (40) individuals in the North Shore area have joined the Committee’s request that the county require robust energy conservation and environmental stewardship in the Martis Valley West Parcel Specific Plan. The Committee’s supporters wilt be directly and adversely impacted by the implementation of the project and by the failure of the MV WPSP final environmental impact report (EIR) to adequately evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project and the failure to propose feasible mitigation and alternatives as required pursuant to CEQA. Petitioner brings this action as a representative of the general public that will be affected by the project. 7. Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) is a California corporation and the sole owner of the entire MV WPSP project site. Mountainside Partners, LLC, is a li d liability company and the project applicant. MVWP Development LLC is an entity unknown that was listed by the County of Placer on the Notice of Determination filed October 12, 2016 with the County Clerk of Placer County as a "Project Applicant/Owner," 8, Without a representative organization such as petitioner, it would be impractical and uneconomic for individual members of the public to enforce CEQA with respect to the project, discussed herein. Without a representative action such as this one, the violations of CEQA described in this petition would remain immune from judicial review. No governmental agency is prepared to evaluate these environmental i sues of to enforce the public rights that are at stake. 9, Venne for this action is proper in this court because the environmental impacts of the actions alleged herein will cause direct and substantial impacts within Placer County and because the principal office of the respondent agency is situated within Placer County. 10. ncurrently herewith petitioner is filing a declaration of prior service by mail upon Placer County of written notice of intent to commence this action in compliance with the requirements of Public Resources Code section 21 167.5. Petition for Writ of Mandate - 311. Petitioner is farther filing and serving herewith its notice of its election to prepare the administrative record in this matter pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.6. 12, The true names and capacities of the respondents and real parties in interest sued herein under California Code of Civil Procedure section 474 as Does | through 100, inclusive, are presently unknown to petitioner. Does 1 through 100 include agents of the county, state, and federal government who are responsible in some manner for the conduyet described herein and real parties in interest presently unknown to the petitioner who claim some legal or equitable interest in the project who petitioner therefore sues by such fictitious names. Petitioner will amend this petition to include these Doe respondents’ true names and capacities when they are ascertained. Each of the ficitiously- named respondents is responsible in some manner for the conduct alleged herein. 13. Petitioner's action herein will result in the enforcement of important rights affecting the public interest and confer substantial benefits on the general public. The necessity and financial burden of private enforcement justify an award of attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 14. The county published a draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for the project on October 22, 2015. The public comment period on the DEIR extended through December 22, 2015, CCEC contributed extensively to a comment letter by the North Tahoe Preservation Alliance (NTPA) that was delivered to the County of Placer offices on December 21, 2015. The county released the final EIR on May 3, 2016, which consisted of a series of amendments to the draft EIR, copies of comment letters and responses, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. CCEC submitted written comments on the final ER, supporting documentation and signed petitions along with NTPA on June 2, 2016. Numerous other organizations including the Office of the California Attorney General submitted comments on the FIR, 15. The Placer County Planning Commission initially considered the project at its June 9, 2016 meeting, Forty-five (45) members of the general public provided testimony that was virtually unanimous in condemning the project for a host of reasons including wildfire evacuation concerns, Petition for Writ of Mandate = 4traffic concerns, impacts on fake clarity, visual impacts, and biological impacts. The Planning Commission continued its consideration of the project and at a subsequent hearing on July 7, 2016 received testimony from an additional 32 individuals. ‘The Planning Commission then took action recommending to the Board of Supervisors by a vote of $ to 2 denial of the project. 16. On September 13, 2016, the Placer County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the project and received testimony from 60 members of the public. At that time the Board took action to tentatively approve the project by a vote of 4 to | and to continue the hearing to October 11, 2016, at which time the Board took the following actions: a. Certified the Martis Valley West Parcel Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report and adopted Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Resolution 2016-193); b. Approved the Martis Valley West Parcel Specific Plan (Resolution 2016-194); ©. Approved the Martis Valley West Parcel Specific Plan Development Standards (Ordinance $838-B); d. Approved the Martis Valley West Parcel Specific Plan Design Guidelines (Resolution 2016-195); €. Approved an amendment to the Martis Valley Community Plan Land Use Diagram to incorporate the Martis Valley West Parcel Specific Plan land use designation (Resolution 2016-196); £ Amended the Martis Valley Community Plan to add Goat 6.J and associated policies 6.J.1 and 6.J.2 related to emergency preparedness (Resolution 2016-197); g. Approved the tentative immediate rezone of 662 acres of the West Parcel from ‘TPZ to SPL-MVWPSP (Ordinance 5839-B); h. Approved the rezone of all remaining acreage in the West Parcel from OS to SPL- MVWPSP and the rezone of 670 actes of the East Parcel from RS and C-1 to TPZ (Ordinance 5840-B); i. Approved the Development Agreement relative to the Martis Valley West Parcel Specific Plan (Ordinance 5841-B; and Petition for Writ of Mandate - 5j. Approved the large-lot vesting tentative subdivision map. 17. A Notice of Determination for the project was filed and posted by the County Clerk of Placer County on October 12, 2016. 18. Despite the extensive comments received, the county nevertheless prepared and relied onan EIR that falls well below the minimum legal standards, The county achieved this result in part by adopting a "programmatic" EIR for what should have been a project-level analysis and a project level EIR. If the respondent agencies are allowed to proceed with the project, irreparable harm will result to the environment and the public, No adequate remedy, other than that prayed for herein, exists by which the rights of the petitioner and the class it represents may be protected. 19, Petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies by submitting written comments on the project requesting compliance with CEQA and a fil) and adequate environmental review. All issues raised in this petition were raised with the respondent agencies by the Committee or by other members of the public or public agencies prior to the certification of the EIR. Respondent has made its final decision. This petition is timely filed in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21167 and CEQA Guidelines section 15112. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 20. Adopted Mitigation. The final EIR set forth, and the county adopted a single, conditional mitigation measure for the significant GHG impacts expected to result from the proposed project. Mitigation measure 12-2 would provide GHG mitigation only (a) if the State of California establishes a new GHG target or plan that applies both before and after 2020 and (b) if that target or plan is "based on a substantiated linkage” between the MVWPSP project and statewide GHG reduction goals. Alternatively, Measure 12-2 provides that Placer County could adopt a GHG reduction plan so fong as that plan contains a "substantiated linkage" to "statewide GHG reduction goals.” The EIR states that "such targets do not yet exist and it would be specutative to assume what they might be." In the event that such a target or plan were to be adopted, measure 12-2 provides that the developer would be required to demonstrate "whether operation of the project would be consistent with GHG targets adopted by the State." If the project failed to mect the hypothetical Petition for Writ of Mandate - 6woe target or plan, measures would then be incorporated into the project to reduce GHG emissions to the target level "to the extent feasible." Various candidate measures to reduce GHG emissions were listed in measure 12-2 along with the option of paying GHG offset fees to an unidentified "ARB- approved GHG reduction program." Since the targets do not exist and since the cost and feasibility of measures that might be adopted are unknown, the EIR concludes that the GHG impacts are potentially significant and unavoidable. 21. Exhaustion. In the comment letter jointly authored by CCEC and NTPA and submitted December 21, 2015, the county was warned that the EIR should not defer analysis of the GHG impacts or the formulation of mitigation measures, notified that the proposed GHG mitigation was ineffective, and warned that the mitigation failed to establish any measure of what mitigation would actually be required. The county was also notified that its conclusion that the project could not achieve 40 percent or 80 percent below 1990 levels of GHG emissions was unsupported. The county responded by referring to its Master Response 7, which did not address the issues raised in in response to the final EIR, CCEC and NTPA corresponded that the comment letter. Subsequently, measure 12-2 did not constitute sufficient mitigation, that formulation of the mitigation should not be dete red, that no performance measure had been specified, and that measure 12-2 was speculative and unsupported. Other commenters submitted similar information. The California Attomey General corresponded that the final EIR did not adopt the fisted items for GHG emissions as enforceable mitigation. The Attorney General further informed the county (i) thal the county was deferring both the formulation of mitigation and the determination of significance, (ii) that there was no showing that it would be impracticat to adopt mitigation at the time of project approval, (ii) that there was nothing to demonstrate that a local GHG emissions level could be developed for statewide targets, (v) that the burden of doing the analysis of emissions had been shifted to the developer, and (vi) that the finding that impacts were unavoidable was not supported by substantial evidence. ‘The comment letter by Mountain Area Preservation (MAP) and Sierra Watch pointed owt that che 1,100 MT CO2e per year threshold used in the final EIR was completely disconnected from the required level of mitigation which was based on targets that might be adopted in the future 22. No Justification for Deferred Formulation of Mitigation. There was no justification Petition for Writ of Mandate - 7for the county's deferring the formulation of mitigation for the GHG impacts. Numerous feasible mitigation measures were available to the county that it failed to incorporate into the EIR and failed ind it to adopt. The county adopted a threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year for GHG emissions, ‘was neitler necessary nor proper to suspend the formulation of feasible mitigation based on the possibility that some agency might adopt another standard for GHG emissions in the future Formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred to some future time if it is practical to formulate mitigation during the planning process, (Cal. Code Regs., 14, § 19126.4(a)(1(B).) 23. Lack of Performance Standard. Mitigation measure 12-2 provided that if new statewide GHG standards were adopted with a "substantiated linkage" to the proposed project, then the county would evaluate the project for compliance with those standards. The county concedes that no such standards exist. Moreover, in the final EIR the county went on to concede the difficulty in establishing such a standard, stating that it is “unclear how . . . to develop the evidence to reliably relate a specific land use development project's reductions to the Scoping Plan's statewide goal." Such an undefined mitigation measure is unlawful because it is speculative and unsupported. There is no identified performance standard in existence, and it is not know whether an applicable standard can or ever will be adopted. When the formulation of mitigation is deferred, the proposal for deferred mitigation must specify a performance standard. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4(a{1)(B).) No performance standard has been specified. The mitigation consists of waiting for regulatory action that may never occur. Mitigation measure 12-2 is not enforceable. It produces, the impression that something will be done to mitigate GHG impacts when in fact it amounts to nothing but waiting for potential future regulation. 24. Mitigation Not Geared to Adopted Threshold. The county adopted a significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2c per year to evaluate the GHG impact of the project. The final EIR estimated that the project's annual CO2e emissions would be 30,427 metric tons per year. Since that level of emissions greatly exceeded the threshold, the county found that the project's impact on GHG emissions would be significant. Consequently, the county was required to identify and describe feasible mitigation to minimize the significant GHG emissions identified in the EIR. Mitigation measure 12-2 did not address the significant GHG emissions discussed in the EIR, ic., Petition for Writ of Mandate - 8 ;emissions exceeding 1,100 metric tons per year. Rather, measure 12-2 purported to only address those GHG emissions that would exceed a hypothetical performance standard described in measure .e., Some unknown future regulatory target or plan. The county failed to identify mitigation addressing the significant GHG impacts identified in the EIR, (Pub, Resources Code, §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3).) 25, GHG Analysis To Be Completed by Developer. Mitigation measure 12-2 provides that in consultation with Placer County and the Placer County APCD, “the applicant shalt demonstrate, based on currently adopted regulations and industry-accepted GHG calculation methods, whether operation of the project would be consistent with GHG targets adopted by the State." Such a mitigation measure is unlawful. Under CEQA, a lead agency cannot charge the project developer with the responsibility to study and determine whether the project's impacts are significant or to design the mitigation for significant project impacts, Such a process inevitably biases the outcome toward the developer's interests, 26. Failure to Describe Feasible Mitigation. The type of GHG targets that are required under measure 12-2 have not been established. No evidence exists that such statewide targets linked ¢o the project can be adopted or ever will be adopted. Consequently measure 12-2 is infeasible and unenforceable. Numerous feasible measures were proposed to mitigate GHG impacts, yet the county failed to identify them in the EIR as feasible mitigation and failed to adopt them, Instead the county listed a few mitigation measures and made them inapplicable unless special GHG targets or plans are developed. ‘The county failed to meet its obligation to systematically identify and describe in the EIR the feasible mitigation measures that are available to avoid or substantially lessen the significant greenhouse gas impacts of the project. (Pub, Resources Code, § 21002; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4{a).) 27. Finding te Unavoidable GHG Impacts Unsupported. The Board of Supervisors CEQA Findings of Fact, adopted October 11, 2015, found that the project would generate GHG emissions exceeding the Tier | mass-emission threshold [1,100 metric tons per year] and that therefore the project would result in a substantial contribution to GHG emissions, The county further found that feasible mitigation measures had not been identified and that the impact was Petition for Writ of Mandate - 9therefore considered “unavoidable,” That finding was clearly erroneous and not supported by substantial evidence. The record demonstrates numerous feasible measures were available and were identified for the county in comments submitted, TRANSPORTATION 28, State Highway Expansion. The county's transportation analysis concluded that the project would result in significant adverse impacts to traffic congestion on five SR 267 segments between the Placer County line and SR 28, either degrading them from an acceptable level of service (LOS) D to unacceptable LOS E or exacerbating already unacceptable LOS E conditions. The county adopted mitigation measure 10-2 in an attempt to mitigate this impact. Measure 10-2 requires payment of traffic impact fees into the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the Tahoe District operated by the Placer County Department of Public Works. The fees represent a fair share of the costs of projects identified in the CIP and includes widening SR 267 to four lanes from the Placer County line to Brockway Summit. The county concluded in the EIR that widening SR 267 would result in acceptable levels of service for that portion of SR 267. The December 21, 2015 comment letter authored by NTPA and CCEC warned the county that such a mitigation measure would result in its own significant, unanalyzed impacts, The letter pointed out that expanding SR. 267 would increase automobile travel and increase GHG impacts, The Jelter requested that the county evaluate the impact of mitigation measure 10-2. The county stated that "{iJn the future, if Caltrans moves forward with a project to widen SR 267, the project would be subject to a separate environmental study to analyze and disclose the impacts of widening the highway." Such an environmental disclosure process does not comply with CEQA which requires that the impacts of mitigation be discussed. (Cal, Code Regs it. 14, § 15126.4(@)(1)(D).) It was misleading to reference the expansion of SR 267 as a solution without discussing the adverse impacts associated with such a major project, 29, Transit as Mitigation. Various commenters urged the county to require additional transit improvements as mitigation For the significant transportation and GHG impacts. CCEC urged the county to implement a transportation demand management (TDM) program, to market transit, to Petition for Writ of Mandate - 10upgrade transit stops, to provide funding for fare-free transit, and to provide signage for Amtrak along SR 267. Despite the significant and unmitigated impacts to GHG emissions and transportation, the county failed to discuss these suggestions and concluded without support that "no additional measures are necessary." Another commenter received a similar response to a suggestion that the county provide transit subsidies, provide residents with transit passes, and require the developer to recruit transit riders. The Attorney General wrote that the county's response to these suggestions was "erroneous" and amounted to "response by redirection,” The county failed to comply with CEQA by failing to respond to these comments with a detailed, reasoned and good faith analysis of improved transit service as mitigation for the significant GHG and transportation impacts of the project. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15088(c),) Moreover, the county failed to describe and adopt feasible mitigation measures that could minimize the significant adverse GHG and transportation impacts of the project. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4(a)(1).) 30. Bicycle Infrastructure as Mitigation. The c are numerous bicycle facility projects that coutd be funded by the project to increase bicycle usage in North Tahoe offsetting the project's contribution to increased vehicle miles travelled and GHG emissions in the Tahoe Basin. The Lake ‘Tahoe Region Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (LTRBPP) states that vehicle miles travelled and GHG emissions can be reduced by implementing bicycle facilities. The LTRBPP notes that bike paths in proximity to population centers have the greatest potential to reduce VMT. Construction of the full bike/pedestrian network under the LTRBPP is expected to reduce VMT by 8,500 mites per day in summer saving approximately 1,400 metric tons of CO2 emissions per year. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and the Placer County Regional Bikeway Plan recommend a Class Il bike lane on SR 267 from Truckee to Kings Beach. The emergency vehicle access (EVA) route designed (0 the project could be designed and signed to provide greatly enhanced routing for bicycles traveling from the project to Lake Tahoe. The LTRBPP recommends that funding for bicycle improvements in the region "include bicycle and pedestrian projects in local traffic impact/mitigation fee programs." CCBC recommended to the county that it address in the EIR and adopt as mitigation for the project's transportation and GHG impacts a requirement that the project fund bicycle facilities in the North Tahoe area, The EIR failed to describe, and the county failed to Petition for Writ of Mandate - 11adopt, feasible mitigation that would minimize the significant transportation and GHG impacts of the project. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4(ay(1).) 31. Vehicular Traffic in the Basin, The county's response to comments noted that project-generated vehicle trips would contribute to vehicle miles travelled (VMT) in the Tahoe Basin, The county pointed out that approximately 35 percent of daily peak trips in summer or 1,394 daily trips from the project would be into the Tahoe Basin, On a peak travel day the project would generate approximately 13,745 VMT in the Tahoe Basin. The county noted that increased VM results in increased traffic congestion, increased nitrate Joading into the atmosphere (and subsequent deposition into Lake Tahoe), and an increase in the concentration of airborne particulates which affect visibility and human health, The Attorney General pointed out that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) considers the addition of 200 daily trips to the Basin to be a significant impact. Nevertheless, the county declined to use the TRPA threshofd as a standard of significance and failed to evaluate the impact, As the lead agency the county was required to determine whether the increase in VMT in the Basin that will result from the project constitutes a significant impact. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21002, 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(1).) The failure to do so was unlawful under CEQA and constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion. TREE MORTALITY 32. Project Setting. On September 8, 2015, the Placer County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No, 2015-253 proclaiming a public emergeney in Placer County and declaring that tree mortality has reached epidemic levels in Placer County due to extreme and prolonged drought, pine beetles and other tree parasites and that further increases in tree mortality could be expected in the near future. Governor Brown signed a similar proclamation on October 30, 2015. Further, through the California Timberland Productivity Act of 1982, the California Legislature has found that diversion of timberland to urban and other uses threatens to erode the state's timberland and made it state policy to discourage the expansion of urban services into timberland. (Gov. Code, § 51102(a)(3),) ‘The county's discussion of the project setting for forest removal was unlawful because it failed to discuss the over-riding circumstance of an on-going tree mortality epidemic in Petition for Writ of Mandate - 12Placer County. An EIR must describe the environmental setting for the project which is made up of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project from a local and a regional perspective, (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15125(a), (¢).) 33, Cumulative Impact Analysis. The EIR reported that the proposed 662-acre development area on the West Parcel contained approximately 651.5 acres of coniferous forest land hich contains an estimated 46,245 trees at least six inches diameter at breast height (dbh), ‘The species were predominantly white fir followed by Jeffrey pine, sugar pine and others. The county estimated the project's disturbance area where tree removal would occur was 251.3 acres resulting in the removal of 21,798 trees. In purporting to determine the cumulative impact of the anticipated forest removal, the county relied on an outdated 1986 Countywide General Plan BIR stating that there were approximately 423,000 acres of commercial forest land in Placer County and projecting that by 2010 an estimated 13,600 acres would be removed through forestland conversion. The county further stated that in 1986, the county's BIR found forest removal to be Jess than significant Referring to the current project, che county's alleged cumulative impact analysis stated that the proposed project would entail removal of up to 651.5 acres of forestland, The county reasoned that "this conversion would be small, fess than one percent relative to the approximately 400,000 ac available in the area (based on the anticipated conversion of 13,600 or since 1986). This conversion would not cause regional forest conversion projections to be exceeded, and would not substantially reduce the quality or quantity of common forest habitat types in the region.” This conclusion was unsupported. As was pointed out to the county, such a statement does not address the project's contribution to a cumulatively significant impact. Moreover, the analysis constituted an improper ratio analysis. The project's impact should not be viewed in isolation from other projects and should not be based on forest data that is 30 years old and that precedes the recent forest mortality emergency. The point of a cumulative impact analysis is to view the project's impacts in connection with the effects of other projects. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15065(a)(3).) The purpose of a cumulative impact analysis is to avoid considering projects in isolation. Petition for Writ of Mandate - 13ENERGY 34. Energy Analysis. The energy analysis in the final EIR projected that at build-out, operational electrical demand of entire project would be 2.98 megawatt hours (mWh) per year and that natural gas demand would be 1.8 million therms per year, The EIR reported that project operation would be typical Jor residential and commercial in the area, that the project would meet existing building standards, and that the specific plan would encourage greater efficiency. That discussion was not sufficient to allow members of the public or decisionmakers to understand how the project would likely impact energy conservation or to understand how the county reached its determination on that issue. ‘There is no discussion of an energy baseline or an energy thresbold. There is no breakdown of the expected usage, ie. heating, fighting, air conditioning, water heating, vehicle charging, etc, Without a discussion of energy usage patterns, itis impossible to understand whether energy is being used efficiently or not, Simply saying, as the county did, that "fofperation of the proposed project would be typical” is useiess to the public and does not support a conclusion that the project is energy efficient. There is no evidence that the typical home is energy efficient. On-going public sector activity in California demonstrates that the typical home built in California has not been energy efficient in the past and that regulation has been requited to promote energy efficiency. ‘There is no support for the assumption that California has now reached a pinnacle where new homes are energy efficient 35. Specific Plan. The EIR inaccurately reported that "[iJn addition to energy efficiency measures required by the state, energy-saving features would be incorporated into future development under the MVWPSP." In reaching that conclusion, the county relied on policies that “encourage” various energy conservation measures, relied on vague statements such as minimizing the need for HVAC, and relied on measures that would be required by law. Nothing supports the conclusion that platitudes in a high-level planning documents have any effect on energy conservation. The assertion that these homes would incorporate energy features beyond what is, requited by statute is misleading and unsupported. 36, Per Capita Bnergy Consumption. The county's conclusion that the project will reduce per capita energy consumption is unsupported. The county reports that approximately 80 percent of Petition for Writ of Mandate - 14the homes in the project are expected to be second homes. Owning a second home does not result in a reduction in per capita energy consumption, Second homes in a resort community such as Lake Tahoe may have large heating and cooling loads and lighting loads along with heated pools. Such homes entail a high energy demand. Moreover, when @ person owns two homes, various energy uses continue at both homes. Security systems, pool pumps, landscape maintenance, well operation, snow removal, miscellaneous plug Joads, security lighting, and electrical usage may continue at both the first residence and the second residence. More energy consuming devices are entailed with two homes creating a greater likelihood that unnecessary loads will be running, Construction of a second home requires additional energy to construct. Owning and occupying a second home requires nergy to commute between the wo homes, The county's conclusion that owning a second home will reduce a person's per capita energy consumption is clearly erroneous and unsupported. Owning a second home is an unnecessary use of energy and therefore the project would have a significant adverse impact on energy consumption, 37. Transportation Energy. The EIR reported that various features of the specific plan ‘would reduce transportation energy use including (i) providing zoning for neighborhood commercial, (ii) developing onsite trails connecting to the regional trail system, (iii) building a bus stop at the project entrance, (iv) financially supporting transit service, and (v) joining the local transit association. This is an incomplete and misleading picture of the transportation energy impacts of the project. The transportation energy baseline for the project is zero because the site is a forest. When the project is built, the county's transportation analysis reports that ¢he project is expected to generate 3,985 vehicle trips per day. The county expects that only 10 percent of the trips made by a typical full-time resident of the project would be destined for a location within the project itself. The majority of trips would be destined toward the North Shore (30% - 35%) or destined to travel east or west on 1-80 (35% - 39%). This project is plainly situated in a geographic location that predestines its residents to a lot of driving for relatively long distances, precisely the kind of development practice that involve greater transportation energy requirements. The fect that there is a bus stop down by the project entrance or trails in the area does not make this an energy efficient project. The county has failed to comply with CEQA by failing to provide a detailed staternent setting forth the Petition for Writ of Mandate - 1520 significant energy impacts of the proposed project (Pub. Resources. Code, § 21100(b).) 38. Renewable Energy. The EIR reports that 20 percent of the energy supplied by Liberty Utility is derived from renewable resources. It did not identify the source of the remai 1B 80 percent, if the ulility relies on coal fired power, that should be disclosed. Moreover, the setting discussion failed to provide information concerning renewable energy options for the project and failed to provide information concerning the methods available for reducing the consumption of fossil fuels, ‘The EIR reveals no attempt to determine the extent to which renewable energy Tesources could serve the project, The EWR faited (© discuss rooftop solar photovoltaics for electricity generation, failed to discuss solar water heating for domestic hot water and swimming Pool heating, and failed to discuss heat pumps which are cost effective systems that reduce the amount of fossil-fuel required for building heating and cooling, The county's failure to evaluate the Use of solar photovoltaics, solar water heating, and ground source heat pumps to reduce the project's reliance on fossil-fired power constitutes @ failure to produce a minimally adequate analysis of the project's impacts to energy. The statement that the project would encourage the use of renewable ‘energy resources is unsupported and clearly erroneous. The county's conclusion that the project would not entail unnecessary, wasteful or inefficient consumption of energy is not supported. The county failed to identify and evaluate the potential of the project to implement cost-effective, renewable energy and energy efficiency and failed to disclose and mitigate the project's significant adverse impact to energy conservation ALTERNATIV! 39, Alternat es Described. The county described five alternatives in the final BIR, none of which was feasible, met the project objectives, and had environmental advantage-- a, Alternative 1 in the EIR assumed that no new devefopment will oceur in the project area so it clearly did not meet the project objectives. b. Alternative 2 assumed that no change would gecur in the applicable land use designations in the area. It clearly did not meet the objective of preserving the East Parcel as a large, interconnected open-space linking the Sierra Nevada to the Petition for Writ of Mandate - 16Mt. Rose Wildemess, c. Alternative 3 was described as a "reduced density alternative." Jt maintained the project's footprint on the West Parcel but reduced the number of dwelling units to 418, The county deemed this to be financially infeasible because "there is no basic infrastructure that could be down sized or eliminated as a result of reducing the number of units to be built.” 4. Alternative 4 was described as the "reduced footprint, hotel alternative.” Under Alternative 4 the project would remain on the West Parcel but a 100-unit hotel and 150 space parking lot would be added while residential dwellings would be reduced to 500 units, Adding the hotel was a poison pill that eliminated the environmental advantage. It produced more trips because those driving to a hotel tend to make more trips according to the EIR. e. Alternative 5 consisted of 418 dwellings covering 200 acres, but it was located on the East Parcel. Locating on the East Parcel was obviously a poison pill because the East Parcel was intended to create an interconnected open-space. 40. Clustered Design Alternative. None of the county's alternatives was feasible, met the project objectives, and reduced environmental impacts. Petitioner provided a detailed alternative proposal suggesting the obvious idea of clustering units on the West Parcel but not encumbering the project with a hotel that generates a large number of trips. Petitioner provided the county with professionally-prepared clustered development designs along with a supporting discussion documenting the environmental benefits of the designs. This demonstrated that a clustered development alternative would achieve the project objectives better than the proposed design and at the same time reduce the significant and unmitigated GHG impacts of the project. The clustered designs reduced the acres of forest converted, reduced the length of the roads requited, improved shuttle access, and reduced the total floor area of the project. The county was advised that the alternatives discussed in the EIR consist of large-footprint, low-density, residential spraw! that would exacerbate the significant GHG impacts by (a) increasing the destruction of carbon sequestered in trees, (b) increasing embodied GHG emissions associated with expanded Petition for Writ of Mandate - 1720 construction, (c) increasing GHG emissions associated with building longer roads, (4) increasing the GHG emissions with widely-separated residences, (e) increasing distances between structures and the likelihood of residents driving, and ({) failing to organize the development for convenient access to the shuttle service. In response the county did not deny the GHG benefits the proposed clustered alternative would achieve, Rather, the county simply stated that "it ig not clear how much the alternatives would actually reduce GHG emissions." 4}, Reasonable Range, Despite having no viable alternatives of its own, the county failed to analyze the site-specific, professional recommendations produced by petitioner and NTPA that demonstrated a feasible low-carbon alternative that would meet project objectives. The county only considered more compact development when it was accompanied by a poison pill, ie., being sited on the East Parcel or being combined with a high-traffic hotel that produces significant additional impacts. The county violated CEQA by failing to examine a reasonable range of alternatives, Projects should not be approved as proposed where there are feasible alternatives that would. substantially Jessen the significant environmental effects of the project. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.) \USE OF ACTION (Failure to Comply with CEQA) 42. Petitioners incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth above. 43. CEQA requires that lead agencies prepare an EIR that complies with the requirements of the statute. The lead agency must also provide for public seview and comment on the project and associated environmental documentation. An EIR must provide sufficient environmental analysis such that decision-makers can intelligently consider environmental consequences when acting on the proposed project. 44, Respondent violated CEQA by certifying an EIR for the project that is inadequate and fails to comply with CEQA and approving the project on that basis. Among other things, respondent a. Failed to describe the project setting from a regional and local perspective and Petition for Writ of Mandate - 1823 24 25 ou 28 failed to provide a consistent and appropriate environmental baseline for analysi of the project’s environmental impacts; b. Failed to adequately identify and analyze the project’s significant environmental impacts including but not limited to the project’s impacts on transportation, forest loss, and energy conservation; ¢. Failed to adequately analyze the significant cumulative impacts of the project; d_ Improperly deferred impact analysis and mitigation measures; Failed to discuss potentially feasible mitigation measures and alternatives; and £ Failed to adopt and make enforceable feasible mitigation for project impacts. 45. AS a result of the foregoing defects, respondent prejudicially abused its discretion by certifying an EIR that does not comply with CEQA and by approving the project in reliance thereon. Accordingly, respondent's certification of the EIR and approval of the project must be set aside. ECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Inadequate Findings) 46. Petitioner hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth above. 47. CEQA requires that a lead ageney’s findings for the approval of a project be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. CEQA further requires that a lead agency provide an explanation of how evidence in the record supports the conclusions the agency has reached. 48. Respondent violated CEQA by adopting findings that are inadequate as a matter of Jaw in that they are not supported by substantial evidence in the record, including, but not limited to the following: 8. The determination that certain impacts would be Jess than significant and/or that adopted mitigation measures would avoid or lessen the project’s significant effects on the environment; b. ‘The determination that certain mitigation was infeasible; and €. The determination that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other Potition for Writ of Mandate » 1916 7 benefits of the project outweighed its significant impacts on the environment, 49. Asa result of the forgoing defects, respondent prejudicially abused its discretion by adopting findings that do not comply with the requirements of CEQA and approving the project in reliance thereon. Accordingly, the agency's certification of the EIR and approval of the project must be set aside. (Failure to Recirculate the EIR) 50. Petitioner hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth above. 51. CEQA requires that if significant new information is added to an EIR after a draft EIR is prepared, but before certification of the final EIR, the EIR must be recirculated for public review and comment. 52, Comments submitted to respondent after the draft EIR was circulated provided significant new information within the meaning of Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines section [5088.5 including, but not limited to, information about greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, forest land, energy conservation, and feasible mitigation for project impacts 53. Despite the availability of this significant new information, respondent failed to recirculate the EIR, or any portion of the EIR. As a result of respondent’s failure to recirculate the EIR, the public and other public agencies were deprived of any meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the project, its substantial adverse environmental consequences, and the new information regarding other unanalyzed environmental effects of the project. 54, Respondent’s failure to recirculate the EIR is not supported by substantial evidence and represents a failure to proceed in the manner required by law. WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully requests the following relief: 1. A peremptory writ of mandate commanding that: a. Respondent vacate and set aside its certification of the EIR and all related project, approvals including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, Statement of Petition for Writ of Mandate - 20Overriding Considerations and findings; b, Respondent withdraw the notice of determination; c. Respondent prepare and circulate a revised BIR for public review and comment that is in compliance with the requirements of CEQA; and 4. Respondent suspend all activity pursuant to the certification of the EIR and the related approvals that could result in any change or alteration to the physical environment until it has taken all actions aecessaty to comply with CEQA. 2. Preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining respondent, its agents, employees, contractors, consultants and all persons acting in concert with them, from undertaking any construction or development, issuing any approvals or permits, or taking any other action to implement in any way the approval of the project without full compliance with California law; 3. A declaration of the rights and duties of the parties hereto, including but not limited to a declaratory judgment that prior to undertaking any action to carry out any aspect of the project, ‘respondent must prepare, circulate, and adopt a revised EIR in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; 4. Petitioner's costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees; and 5. Such other relief as the court deems just and proper. Dated: October Ze 12016 LAW OFFICE OF EUGHE WILSON Committee Petition for Writ of Mandate - 21VERIFICATION Lam an officer of petitioner, California Clean Energy Committee, and J am authorized to execute this verification on behalf of petitioner. I have read the foregoing petition and am familiar with its contents. The facts recited in the petition are true of my personal knowledge except as to matters stated on information and belief and as to those matters J believe them to be true, { declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Verification was signed on October De 52016, at ce Davis, California, Stpejle S. Wilson Petition for Writ of Mandate - 22