Molano v. City of Glendale

Filed 2/23/09 Molano v. City of Glendale CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

APPEAL from an Order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Dzintra Janavs, Judge. Affirmed.

John A. Henning, Jr., for Petitioner and Appellant Herbert Molano.

Scott H. Howard, Gillian van Muyden and Michael J. Garcia, Glendale City Attorneys; Cox, Castle & Nicholson, Michael H. Zischke and Scott B. Birkey; Gatzke Dillon & Balance, Mark J. Dillon and Rachel C. Cook, for Respondent City of Glendale.

_____________________________

Petitioner Herbert Molano appeals the trial courts denial of his writ of mandate seeking to compel respondent the City of Glendale (City) to set aside the certification of its final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) approving the Citys project known as the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP or Plan). He raises numerous contentions, the principal thrust of which is that the EIR did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)[1]because (1) the EIRs description of the DSP was inadequate, and (2) the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR did not sufficiently address the impacts of the DSP.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY[2]

A. The Downtown Specific Plan.

Downtown Glendale is located at the southern base of the Verdugo Mountains, in a valley bounded on the west by the Los Angeles River and Griffith Park and to the east by the San Rafael Hills. Glendale is located adjacent to Burbank, Pasadena, North Hollywood, and downtown Los Angeles. In 2003, the City began preparation of the DSP, and in that regard, formed a Downtown Specific Plan Advisory Group that convened in March 2006.

The Plan is an urban design oriented plan that describes the physical vision of downtown Glendale through policies, land use regulations, and design/development standards and guidelines. Its purpose is to guide development and design of the 220-acre downtown Glendale area. The Plan is intended to, among other things, provide a framework and a manual to guide responsible growth and development downtown; perpetuate a powerful physical image promoting the Citys regional identity; ensure the downtowns status as a good place to do business; encourage excellence in design and quality of craftsmanship to enhance the downtown environment; strengthen the downtowns pedestrian, bicycle and transit-oriented features; provide incentives for a wide range of downtown housing; present development regulations in a user-friendly, easy-to-follow manner; preserve and enhance the distinctive character of the Citys downtown buildings, streets, and views; and concentrate growth in downtown.

The DSP identified 11 downtown districts, each with unique characteristics. The Plans proposed land use policies would build on the existing strengths of the downtown area, and add amenities, services, employment and living opportunities. A mix of land uses is critical to support a diverse downtown climate, enhance the pedestrian quality of the street, reduce vehicle trips, and reinforce the existing varied character of Downtown Glendale. The land use policies encourage the clustering of certain uses as definable districts; designate key ground floor uses; identify opportunities to create mixed-use neighborhoods; and increase the Downtowns supply of open space.

The DSP established permitted land uses for each district, and set forth urban design policies to reflect the pattern of uses, height and density envisioned by the Plan. These policies required new development to conform to the character of existing development in the 11 districts, preserve and reuse historic buildings, protect and enhance views of the Verdugo Mountains, concentrate tall buildings in one area, create good transition between neighborhoods, and enhance pedestrian uses. The Plan set limits on building heights and floor area ratios (FARs) for each district; created standards for building massing and scale; preserved landmark architectural features; and established setback requirements and frontages.

The DSP envisioned the development of a comprehensive open space plan for the downtown, and set forth open space design standards and guidelines. The DSP was intended to develop mobility through and around the downtown area, encourage pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and reduce parking and traffic problems. The Plan provided for incentives and bonuses to encourage desirable uses, such as affordable housing, historic preservation, hotel development, open space, reuse of existing buildings, and sustainable design.

The Plan noted that although a program EIR had been prepared for the Plan, every new project in Downtown is subject to a project-specific environmental review as required by [CEQA]. Further, to adopt the Plan, the City and/or its agencies would be required, among other things, to adopt a comprehensive mobility plan, establish funding mechanisms to fund utility improvements required by the cumulative impacts of growth in the Plan area, and streamline the permit and review processes for projects in the DSP area. The Plan also contemplated street improvements to Central Avenue, Glendale Avenue, and street extensions of several streets.

B. Draft EIR.

In August 2006, the City circulated a draft program EIR[3]and started the 45-day comment period on the draft EIR. (See CEQA Guideline  15105, subd. (a).)

1. Project Summary and Description.

The draft EIR set forth that the DSP was intended to guide development and design within the approximately 220 acres located in the center of the City of Glendale, would develop up to approximately 3,980 residential units and up to a total of approximately 1.7 million square feet of retail and office space, and was anticipated to generate 3,390 jobs in the DSP area.[4] Echoing the language of the DSP, the EIR stated that [t]he DSP consists of a comprehensive set of incentives, standards, and requirements that will implement the vision for the future development of Downtown Glendale. The DSP will act as a planning tool to guide and direct new development, economic development; streetscape improvements, transportation development, parking, pedestrian amenities, open space and land use, preservation of cultural resources, and art space. This is an urban design oriented plan, which sets the physical standards and guidelines as well as land use regulations for activities within the DSP area. In order to achieve these goals the DSP proposes General Plan Amendments (GPAs), Zoning Changes (ZC), and District Design Standards.

The draft EIR stated that the vision for downtown Glendale seeks to preserve and enhance the aspects of each district which provide its unique character, while improving the attractiveness and livability of the downtown area. In particular, the EIR noted that the land use policies built on existing strengths and added amenities, employment, and living opportunities and a mix of land uses were critical to support a diverse downtown climate, enhance pedestrian qualities of the streets, reduce vehicle trips, and reinforce the downtowns varied character. The plans land use policies would encourage the clustering of certain uses in definable districts, designate key ground floor uses, identify opportunities to create mixed-use neighborhoods, and increase the downtowns supply of open space.

To implement the Plan, the City would be required to certify the final EIR, and adopt the Glendale DSP, General Plan amendments, and associated zone changes. The draft identified areas of controversy and issues to be resolved that had been raised during the period of public review prior to its preparation, including such topics as aesthetics (impacts of height, open space, massing of development, street appearances), cultural resources, parkland, increased traffic, traffic flow, public transit, and school capacity.

Currently, the majority of the downtown area is zoned as Central Business District. Remaining parcels were commercial (C2 and C3), high-density residential (R-1650 and R-1250), commercial mixed use (CMU), residential mixed use (RMU), and special recreation (SR). Under the DSP, the zoning map for the DSP area would be amended concurrently with the adoption of the DSP to include a DSP zone. The General Plan, including the General Plan Land Use Map, would be amended to include a DSP land use designation.

The proposed development under the DSP would include up to 3,980 residential units, and 1.7 million square feet of office development. At the time of preparation, there were approximately 10 development projects within the DSP that were either under construction, permitted, approved, or pending, and were included in the Project on a program level. Each of these ten projects[5]and any other future development project within the DSP project area will require separate environmental clearance/review on a project level.

The DSP set forth height limits in each of the districts. Those limits were based upon a 20-foot ground floor and 15 feet for each additional floor and were applied to all districts except the Alex Theatre District and properties on the west side of Brand Boulevard north of California, each of which had different limits.

The draft EIR analyzed cumulative impacts of the project based upon a list of projects identified by the City and neighboring jurisdictions, as well as a build-out of the General Plan.

2. Environmental Analysis.

The draft EIR began with a discussion of the setting relevant to each issue area, and a discussion of the projects impacts to that area. It analyzed significance thresholds, described the impacts of the proposed project, provided mitigation measures for each impact, and identified the level of significance after mitigation. The significance thresholds were derived from the CEQA Guidelines. The draft EIR discussed inconsistencies between the proposed project and the General Plan and the Citys Redevelopment Agency Central Glendale Redevelopment Project Area goals and objectives.

The EIR reported an environmental analysis of aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and services systems.[6] In each case, the EIR set forth a baseline (the current environmental setting), project impacts, and mitigation of significant impacts. With respect to each significant impact found in each of these categories, the EIR discussed whether the impact could be mitigated to less than significant levels, whether the impact would be significant and unavoidable, and the cumulative impacts.

3. Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation.

Pursuant to Guideline 15126.2, subdivision (b), the EIR described significant impacts that could not be avoided even with implementation of feasible mitigation measures. The EIR identified unavoidable project-related or cumulative impacts to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, traffic and transportation, and utilities and service systems. The EIR also stated that the Plan would result in significant irreversible impacts if certain conditions (such as large commitments of unrenewable resources, wasteful use of energy, environmental accidents) occurred, and further that growth-including effects could occur if, among other things, the Plan removed an impediment to growth or established a precedent-setting action (such as a change in zoning or general plan amendment).

The drafters concluded, however, that the project would not induce substantial population growth in the area beyond that already forecasted, and that the proposed land uses and zoning were consistent with the existing designation for retail and land uses, and therefore the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan would not set precedent.

4. Alternatives to the Proposed Project.

The EIR set out in detail three alternative scenarios: (1) No project, with development according to a continuation of the current general plan; (2) reduced (mid-rise) project (66 fewer residential units and 37,500 less square footage of office space), and reduced (low-rise) project (546 fewer residential units and 37,500 less square footage of office space). The analysis included, for each of the identified impacted areas (aesthetics, air quality, etc.), a comparison of the three alternatives with the project. The EIR concluded that Alternative One did not avoid or lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project; Alternative Two did not reduce any of the projects significant impacts to a less-than-significant level, but did reduce the severity of many impacts; and Alternative Three would reduce the significant and unavoidable impact to the visual character of the DSP to a less-than-significant level. Of the three alternatives, Alternative Three was described as environmentally superior to the project, but would not meet project objectives.

C. Public Comment and Final EIR.

During the comment period, the City received eight comment letters, including one from petitioner.

On October 20, 2006, the City responded to the comments and issued the final EIR. The final EIR consisted of the draft EIR, with modifications, and incorporated a section on mitigation and monitoring of mitigation measures. On October 27, 2006, the City filed a separate supplemental response to petitioners comments.

On October 30, 2006, the Citys Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended certification of the EIR and approval of the DSP. The City certified the EIR on October 31, 2006, and approved the DSP on November 7, 2006.

D. Petition for Writ of Mandate.

On December 8, 2006, a Herbert Molano, together with Alan Smolinsky and Conquest Student Housing LLC,[7]filed a petition for peremptory writ of mandate, alleging the City had not complied with CEQA in numerous particulars.[8] Petitioners asserted 11 points of error, primarily contending that the EIR (1) failed to adequately describe the existing conditions or the project; (2) deferred shade impacts to project-level review; (3) understated cumulative impacts; (4) provided inadequate mitigation for glare, historical structures, and wastewater treatment; (5) contained an unsupported finding of no growth inducing impacts; and (6) failed to analyze automatic variance for projects in the pipeline.

On August 31, 2008, the trial court issued its statement of decision denying the petition. The court found that in adopting a program or first tier EIR, which was intended to focus review on the environmental issues relevant to the approval being considered, the City made the same type of discretionary timing and tiering decisions upheld in Al Larson Boat Shop, Inc. v. Board of Harbor Commissioners (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 729 (Al Larson).) Further, the court found the EIR adequately described existing physical conditions and shade impacts, and sufficiently evaluated projects in the pipeline and cumulative impacts. The trial court found that the mitigation for lighting and glare was not illusory, that the EIR addressed comments relating to historical resources and implemented proper mitigation measures for impacts, that the EIRs findings on unavoidable impacts to wastewater, public services, and recreational facilities were supported in the record and consistent with CEQA Guidelines, and that the EIRs finding of no growth-inducing impacts was supported by the record.

DISCUSSION

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

We review the administrative record de novo to determine whether a prejudicial abuse of discretion occurred; we are not bound by the trial courts conclusions. (Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1023.)

In evaluating the Citys certification of the final EIR, we determine whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the City did not proceed in a manner required by law or if its determination is not supported by substantial evidence. ( 21168.5; Riverwatch v. County of San Diego (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1444-1445.) [T]he ultimate decision of whether to approve a project, be that decision right or wrong, is a nullity if based upon an EIR that does not provide the decision-makers, and the public, with the information about the project that is required by CEQA. (Santiago County Water District v. County of Orange(1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 829.) Error is prejudicial in the CEQA context if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 712.)

We apply the substantial evidence test to the Citys factual determinations. Under CEQA, substantial evidence means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. (CEQA Guideline 15384, subd. (a).) We resolve reasonable doubts in favor of the agencys findings and decision. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 393 (Laurel Heights).)

An EIR must contain facts and analysis, and may not consist of the agencys bare conclusions or opinions. It must disclose the analytic route the agency used in reaching its conclusions. (Al Larson, supra, 18 Cal.App.4th at pp. 739-740.) An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of the EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. (CEQA Guidelines,  15151.) Technical perfection is not required; the courts have looked not for an exhaustive analysis but for adequacy, completeness, and a good-faith effort at full disclosure. (Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano (1992)5 Cal.App.4th 351, 368 (Rio Vista).)

We do not pass upon the correctness of the EIRs environmental conclusions, but only determine whether it functions sufficiently as an informative document. (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 393.) Under CEQA, an EIR is presumed to be adequate, and the petitioner in a CEQA action has the burden of establishing otherwise. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the City, but we will enforce mandated CEQA requirements. (Al Larson, supra, 18 Cal.App.4th at p. 740.)

II. PROGRAM AND TIERED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS.

The fundamental goals of environmental review under CEQA are information, participation, mitigation, and accountability. (See CEQA Guidelines,  15002; Guide toCEQA, California Environmental Quality Act (11th ed. 2006), Michael H. Remy, et al., p. 3 (Guide to CEQA).) At the heart of CEQA is the EIR. (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 392.)

CEQA requires an EIR whenever there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the proposed project may produce significant environmental impacts. ( 21080, subd. (d), CEQA Guidelines,  15064, subd. (f)(1); Goleta Union School Dist. v. Regents of University of California (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1029-1030.) An EIR must describe the proposed project and its environmental setting, state the objectives sought to be achieved, identify and analyze the significant effects on the environment, state how those impacts can be mitigated or avoided, and identify alternatives to the project, among other requirements. ( 21100, subd. (b), 21151; CEQA Guidelines, 15124 [project description], 15125 [environmental setting].) The purpose of an environmental impact report is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project. ( 21061.)

The definition of project covers a wide spectrum, ranging from adoption of a general plan, which is by its nature tentative and subject to change, to activities with a more immediate impact, such as the issuance of a conditional use permit for a site-specific development proposal. (Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1315.) The CEQA Guidelines provide for several different types of EIRs to accommodate this diversity. A project EIR examines the environmental impact of a specific development project (CEQA Guidelines, 15161), while a program EIR can be used where a series of actions can be characterized as one large project (CEQA Guidelines, 15168), and a master EIR can be used for a general plan (CEQA Guidelines, 15175). (Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1315-1316.) All types of EIRs must cover the same content. (CEQA Guidelines,  15120-15132.) The level of specificity of an EIR is determined by the nature of the project and the rule of reason. (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 407.)

In order to achieve CEQAs goals, the Guidelines provide that a program EIR can provide the advantages of a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action, ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted if reviewed on a case-by-case basis, avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations, and allow the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures at a time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts. (CEQA Guidelines,  15168, subd. (b).)

Where the program EIR acts as an analytical superstructure for subsequent more detailed analysis, [t]he program EIR should identify those probable environmental effects that can be identified. For those impacts that cannot be predicted without undue speculation or for which the deferral of specific analysis is appropriate, the agency can defer such analysis until later points in the program approval or implementation process. Under this approach, subsequent EIRs (CEQA Guidelines,  15162) can focus on effects not considered in the prior EIR. (Guide to CEQA, supra, pp. 638-639.)

A program EIR may be used in a tiering situation. (CEQA Guidelines,  15152, subd. (h)(3).) Tiering of EIRs occurs where analysis of matters contained in a broader EIR is used with later EIRs on narrower, smaller projects. (CEQA Guidelines,  15152, subd. (a).) The CEQA Guidelines provide that tiering is encouraged for environmental analyses on separate but related projects, including general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the later EIR . . . on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. However, tiering does not excuse the lead agency from adequately analyzing reasonably foreseeable significant environmental effects of the project and does not justify deferring such analysis to a later tier EIR. . . . Most importantly, the level of detail contained in a first tier EIR need not be greater than that of the program, plan, policy, or ordinance being analyzed. (CEQA Guidelines,  15152, subd. (b).)

The Guidelines further provide that with the first tier EIR used in connection with a large-scale project, the development of detailed, site-specific information may not be feasible but can be deferred, in many instances, until such time as the lead agency prepares a future environmental document in connection with a project of more limited geographical scale, as long as deferral does not prevent adequate identification of significant effects of the planning approval at hand. (CEQA Guidelines,  15152, subd. (c).) A later EIR is required where the initial analysis suggests that a project may cause significant effects on the environment that were not adequately addressed in the prior EIR. (CEQA Guidelines,  15152, subd. (f).)

Here, the EIR is a program EIR that functions as a first-tier EIR and anticipates later environmental review of specific projects. (See Al Larson, supra, 18 Cal.App.4th at p. 741.) Program EIRs functioning as a first-tier document need not provide detailed, site-specific analysis. (Rio Vista, supra, 5 Cal.App.4th at p. 371.)

In Rio Vista, the County developed a hazardous waste management plan. The plan served as a preliminary guide or first assessment of the Countys present and future hazardous waste management needs. The plan assessed current facilities and provided projections for future needs; it also provided siting criteria and recommended policies. (Id.at p. 371.) Rio Vista upheld the EIR against a challenge that the EIR was vague and it insufficiently described potential future facilities and the degree to which the County had made project-level descriptions. Because the plan served only as an assessment and overview and did not commit to future facilities or make any decisions as to sites, and committed itself to future EIRs, it was sufficient under CEQA as a program or tiered EIR. (Id.at pp. 371-372.) Rio Vista noted that CEQA requires consideration of future environmental effects of the project actually approved by the agency, not a hypothetical project. (Id.at p. 373.)

In Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 268, the court addressed whether a proposed shipping terminal fell within two prior EIRs, or whether the City was required to file a supplemental EIR pursuant to section 21166. The project was to be carried out in three phases; the facts demonstrated that although phase I of the project was covered in the first EIR, the subsequent phases arose after the first EIR and were not addressed in the supplemental EIR. We conclude the most appropriate way to address the [project] is by preparation of a tiered EIR addressing all three phases. . . . (Id.at pp. 284-285.)[9]

III. CEQA COMPLIANCE.

A. Description of the Baseline is Sufficient.

Petitioner argues the baseline is functionally incoherent because the EIRS descriptions of the environmental setting were too vague. He contends an incomplete baseline has the potential to mask true significance of impacts; as a result he asserts the EIR does not meet the legal standard of providing complete and accurate information to assess whether it adequately investigated and discussed the impacts of the project. In particular, he claims: the Plan area consists of 11 districts, but contains no description of current conditions; development was described as mid-rise, without defining mid-rise; neighborhood density was not defined; the EIR failed to describe areas immediately adjoining the Plan Area; and it contained inadequate photographs of the Plan Area. (See, e.g., San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 723-727 (San Joaquin Raptor); Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1122 (Galante Vineyards).) We find the baseline description sufficient for a first-tier program-level EIR.

An EIR must contain a description of the physical setting existing at the time of the commencement of the project. (CEQA Guidelines,  15125, subd. (a).) CEQA Guideline section 15125 further provides that the EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project from both a local and regional perspective: This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. The description of the environmental setting shall be no longer than is necessary to an understanding of the significant effects of the proposed project and its alternatives. Because the concept of a significant effect on the environment focuses on changes in the environment, [CEQA Guideline 15125] requires an EIR to describe the environmental setting of the project so that changes can be seen in context. (Guide to CEQA, supra, p. 433; County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 952 [before impacts of a project can be assessed and mitigation considered, the EIR must describe the environmental setting because it is against this baseline that any significant environmental effects can be determined].)

The description must be accurate, and the environmental setting must be described in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of the environmental resources affected by the project. (San Joaquin Raptor, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at pp. 722-723.) In San Joaquin Raptor, the court found an EIR for a residential development characterized the surrounding area as farmland in agricultural production misleading because it erroneously omitted all discussion of a neighboring wetland area and failed to discuss the adjacent San Joaquin River. (Id.at pp. 723-724.) In Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, the court held that in an EIR for a water diversion project, the agency could not rely on historical levels of diversion from the Eel River to describe the setting because this description failed to take into account the fact that a federal agency was planning to curtail diversions in order to protect salmon species. (Id.at pp. 873-874.) In Galante Vineyards, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, an EIR for the construction of a new dam and reservoir described surrounding land as undeveloped with some hiking trails and gravel and dirt roads, with low density rural properties and limited grazing. The EIR dismissively referred to nearby vineyards, despite the fact during the draft EIR process it had been informed of the significance of the vineyards to the area. As a result, the EIR was fatally defective. Due to the inadequate description of the environmental setting for the project, a proper analysis of project impacts was impossible. (Id.at p. 1122.)

CEQA Guideline section 15146 provides that The degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. . . . []  (a) An EIR on a construction project will necessarily be more detailed in the specific effects of the project than will be an EIR on the adoption of a local general plan or comprehensive zoning ordinance because the effects of the construction can be predicted with greater accuracy. []  (b) An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption, or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow.

Here, the EIRs descriptions of the 11 districts were approximately one paragraph each. Those statements were adequate in the context of this EIR.

Petitioners other complaint principally relates to the degree of final buildout under the DSP and what can be gleaned about that buildout from the EIR. He contends that although these issues were raised in his comments, the City took the position that such detail was not necessary because the ERI is a program-level document, and as such does not require detailed discussions of specific sites within the area. . . . Specifics on the precise square footage and number of dwelling units within each district would not add any meaningful information or discussion to the EIR and would not change the outcome of the conclusions presented in the EIR.

Contrary to the picture petitioner paints, the EIR contains a plethora of data. The EIR sets forth at Chapter 3, Project Description, in Table 3-2 height FAR[10]limits, and street frontages for each of the distracts. A Map (Figure 3-7) sets forth the preferred height limits for the downtown area, ranging from two to 18 floors, and shows the areas in which each height would be permitted. In the Appendix, the DSP sets forth extensive data on land uses and permit requirements for each of the 11 districts, and discusses permissible industrial, recreational, residential, and mixed-use development for each district that include schools, home occupation, gymnasia, theatres, retirement homes, nightclubs, liquor stores, supermarkets, and nurseries.

With respect to his complaint that the EIR did not adequately set forth the types of developments expected under the DSP and the lack of definition of building size, these arguments lack merit and appear to be a complaint that the detail petitioner seeks is in an appendix, and not the body of the EIR. Appendix I of the EIR contains a discussion of the methodology used to establish buildout under the DSP. It notes that [Insofar] as the proposed [] DSP is principally a zoning document that allows a wide-range of land uses within a defined physical development envelope, it is difficult to predict with any certainty how much and what type of growth might result from the Plan. To make such predictions it is therefore necessary to rely on a series of reasonable approximations. . . . The Appendix notes that various sites in the DSP area have been identified as likely candidates for redevelopment (mostly surface parking lots, two-three story parking structures, and one-three story commercial buildings containing underperforming or marginal uses in areas where the DSP permits significantly higher development potential). Further, the buildout of individual sites was based upon residential density that was calculated by using a ratio of units per acre. The density multiplier was based upon the expected building type and height allowed in the DSP for that site. Assuming that all projects maximize the incentives and bonus program of the DSP, and therefore maximize the DSP zoning envelope, five different building types are expected: 4-5 story mixed use building[s] with residential above ground floor retail /commercial; 5-6 story mixed use building[s] with residential above ground floor retail /commercial; 6-12 story mixed-use tower[s], with residential ground floor retail/commercial; and a 25-story office tower. . . . For the mixed use buildings, residential density is assumed to be 70 units/acre at 4-5 stories, 90 units/acre at 5-6 stories, 100 units/acre at 6-12 stories, and 150 units/acre at 12-24 stories. Appendix I contains detailed tables setting forth numerous sites with detailed information about the current development and potential development at these sites, with the expected residential and office square footage.

Petitioner complains that the EIR describes surrounding land uses in a cursory fashion, summarizing them in one paragraph as commercial uses, dominated by auto dealers and medium to high-density residential, on the south side of the downtown area; residential to the west and east; medium to high-density residential on the north of the downtown area; nonconforming industrial in small area near Wilson Street, and light industrial concentrated on San Fernando Road to the west of the City. At the program level, and given that the project is a specific plan intended to preserve and develop the downtowns unique character and defined districts, these descriptions are sufficient when seen in that context.

Finally, petitioner complains that the EIR only contains six photographs. The DSP, however, contains numerous photographs of each of the districts, and includes photographs of, among other things, the historic Alex Theatre, office buildings, outdoor sculptures, steel and glass high-rises, streetscapes of one-story commercial buildings, mixed-use projects, the Glendale Galleria, commercial chain-store facades, the historic Glendale Post Office (built in 1934 under the WPA), parks, sidewalk cafes, and apartment buildings. Given that the EIR was 600 pages, and the DSP, at 139 pages, was attached to the EIR as an appendix, the lack of photographs in the EIR is not fatal to the adequacy of the EIRs description of the environmental setting.

In light of the fact that the DSP is a blueprint for future City development that is mindful of preserving the character is the Citys current 11 districts, and that the EIR is a first-tier program EIR, we find the description of the environmental setting adequate under CEQA. The EIR reveals potential full buildout: it anticipates adding 3,980 residential units and 1.7 million square feet of office space. The DSP sets forth limits for each particular district as to the permissible FAR. The response to comments to the EIR note that [c]omplete development to the maximum allowable quantity of development, with density bonuses in all instances is not a reasonably feasible scenario. The expectation is that the maximum allowable development would occur on some parcels, but not all parcels, given fiscal, environmental, and physical constraints on the various parcels.

B. Existing Zoning and Planning.

In a related argument, petitioner contends that a complete description of the existing general planning and zoning designations is essential to an evaluation of the project, and complains that the Citys EIR obscured the existing zoning and planning. (City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, 404, 406-407 (City of Redlands); Guidelines 15125(d).) We disagree.

Petitioner here specifically contends that although the project consists of a specific plan, general plan amendments, and changes to zoning ordinances, the EIR lacks a complete description of the current general and specific plans and ordinances necessary to permit an evaluation of the changes to be wrought by the Project. For example, the Project Description includes a map of the existing land-use designations, but the legends are indecipherable to a layperson. The comments to the EIR noted this deficiency, to which the City responded: The EIR focuses on providing a synopsis of the Zoning Code and General Plan changes, and primarily focuses analysis on how these changes will guide development in the Specific Plan Area. The resulting changes that would result from the Zoning Code and General Plan amendments involve two key factors: (1) increased total buildout of the area (explained in detail in Appendix I) and (2) changes to maximum allowable FARs and building heights. Therefore, this is the information most relevant to convey in the Project Description, as these changes are the primary cause of potential environmental impacts.

Petitioners contentions are without merit. While we agree that an EIR must determine whether a project is consistent with a general or specific plan (CEQA Guidelines  15125, subd. (d)),[11]there is no such requirement when the project itself is a general or specific plan. To the contrary, CEQA holds that a plan-level EIR must compare a new plan to existing conditions, not to an existing plan. (Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 352 (County of El Dorado).) In County of El Dorado, the EIR compared the proposed plan with the existing general plans for several areas. In holding this methodology improper under CEQA, County of El Dorado pointed out that [CEQA] evinces no interest in the effects of proposed general plan amendments on an existing general plan, but instead has clearly expressed concern with the effects of projects on the actual environment upon which the proposal will operate. (Id.at p. 354.) Further, in City of Redlands, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th 398, upon which petitioner relies, the County approved amendments to its general plan relating to regulation of unincorporated territory with a citys sphere of influence, and adopted a negative declaration for the plan.[12] (Id.at pp. 403-404.) The court of appeal found a negative declaration improper under CEQA because the proposed plan amendments would have a significant impact upon the environment. (Id.at pp. 408-409.) City of Redlands does not stand for the proposition that an EIR must compare plans to each other.

Petitioners factual contention that the EIR obscures the existing general plan is also unfounded. The EIR contains a color-coded map depicting existing land use designations (high-density residential, community services, regional commercial, mixed-use, public/semi-public, and public/recreation/open space). The EIR also contains a color-coded map showing existing zoning within the downtown area (medium-high density residential, high-density residential, residential mixed-use, community commercial, commercial service, central bus district, town center specific plan, commercial mixed use, commercial general restricted, and special recreation). However, because the new zoning will be a DSP zone, the EIRs map of proposed DSP zoning consists of the entire DSP plan area, and does not depict where each type of zoning will be in effect. To understand the types of buildings and land uses that would be permitted in the DSP area, the reader can, however, refer to the EIRs descriptions of the DSP districts, its discussion of the regulatory frameworks (federal state and local, including the Citys general plan), the tables discussing permissible FARs, and the discussion regarding the Citys Greater Downtown Strategic Plan (GDSP). The GDSP designates features of building design, parking structure design, landscaping, and open space design. As discussed above, the DSP sets forth permitted land uses by district and permit requirements for numerous uses in each district (e.g., antennas, signs, museums, churches, school, theatres, assisted living, nightclubs, taverns, adult businesses, and types retail stores permitted). We conclude the EIR contains sufficiently detailed and accessible information.

C. Project Description.

Petitioner contends that because of the problems with the baseline, the EIR gave a distorted project description that understated the full buildout under the Plan. In particular, he asserts that the DSP is intended to provide a long-range vision for downtown Glendale, but fails to assume buildings built in the next 25 years might themselves be torn down; the impact of potential development is large. Further, although the DSP places a cap on development that limits it to 20.4 percent of the plan area, there is no provision in the EIR or elsewhere for environmental review to be conducted if development exceeds this level. Therefore, he argues, unlike Laurel Heights or City of Antioch, in which the public agency was called upon to forecast whether the proposed project would trigger or encourage future projects in the area, and such projections were speculative, such projections are not speculative here. (City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 243-245.) Here, petitioner argues the proper course is to assume full build-out under the plan, (Los Angeles Unified School District v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1028; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova(2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 422) resulting in the potential for significant amounts of development to escape environmental review. (See, e.g. CEQA Guidelines,  15168(c)(2).)

An EIR must contain an accurate, stable and consistent project description. (CEQA Guidelines,  15124;[13]see also County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 199.) An accurate description is necessary for the intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed action. (Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. Hensler (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 577, 592.) CEQA compels an interactive process of assessment of environmental impacts and responsive project modification which must be genuine. It must be open to the public, premised upon a full and meaningful disclosure of the scope, purposes, and effect of a consistently described project, with flexibility to respond to unforeseen insights that emerge from the process. (Mira Monte Homeowners Assn. v. County of Ventura (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 357, 366.)

The term project is construed broadly to maximize protection of the environment. A narrow view of a project could result in the fallacy of division . . . that is, overlooking its cumulative impact by separately focusing on isolated parts of the whole. (McQueen v. Board of Directors (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1144.) The project description should describe the physical development and be sufficiently detailed to provided a foundation for complete analysis of environmental impacts. (CEQA Guidelines,  15378, subd. (c).) The project description should include reasonably foreseeable activities that may become part of the project. (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 396.) However, an EIR is not required to provide speculation on future development that is unspecified and uncertain. (National Parks and Conservation Assn. v. County of Riverside(1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1505, 1515.)

In San Joaquin Raptor, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th 713, the developer of a residential area failed to include sewer expansion, although it was required before the project could be developed and its construction would impact the environment. (Id.at p. 731.) By ignoring this required element, the EIR frustrated CEQAs core goal of disclosure and informed decision making. (Id.at p. 731-732; see also Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange(1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818.) In Santiago County, the court held inadequate a project description in an EIR on a proposed mining operation that failed to include water facilities that would need to be constructed to deliver water to the mine. Because of this omission, some important ramifications of the proposed project remained hidden from view at the time the project was being discussed and approved. This frustrates one of the core goals of CEQA. . . . An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR. (Santiago County, supra, 118 Cal.App.3d at pp. 829-830.)

We reject petitioners contentions. First, CEQA does not require a worst-case analysis, only an analysis of what is reasonably foreseeable. (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 396.) As discussed above, the supplemental response to comments in the EIR states that the City does not anticipate full build-out occurring.

Second, we find adequate the Plans discussion of the estimated buildout and the assumptions underlying it. First, Appendix I contains the methodology used to establish full buildout. Among other things, the Appendix discusses that a limited number of sites are expected to redevelop, some of them currently in development, and the City identified some future sites that are primarily low-rise (one to three stories). The buildout of individual sites was calculated using a ratio of units per acre derived from GIS data, with the density multiplier calibrated to the expected building type and height allowed under the DSP. For mixed-use buildings, assumptions were made on residential density for various size of projects (from four to 24 stories), and comparisons were made with current developments (within the last five years) in Glendale and nearby cities sharing the same economic and demographic environment.

Contrary to petitioners assertions, the EIR does not assume that no new buildings will be torn down and redeveloped. In response to petitioners comments in this regard, the City responded that recently constructed projects or those with significant existing development generally are not demolished and redeveloped as the result of the implementation of a new set of planning standards. Furthermore, any new development would necessarily have to conform to the DSP, whether it is built next year or in 25 years. Such new development would be evaluated under CEQA at the time the project developers sought approval.

Finally, petitioners concern about the City exceeding the building cap under the DSP is premature. Subsequent projects under the DSP will be subject to CEQA review. At that time, a component of the review will include an evaluation of the current state of the buildout under the Plan. Until then, whether the City has reached or exceed permissible full buildout is not ripe for review. In the case of a specific plan, an environmental impact issue is ripe for consideration when it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the plan and the agency preparing the plan has sufficient reliable data to permit preparation of a meaningful and accurate report on the impact of the factor in question. (Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City of Los Angeles(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1028.)

D. Shade Impact Analysis.

Petitioner complains that although the EIR acknowledged construction of future high-rise buildings, it merely designated such impacts as being significant, but refused to further analyze them on the grounds the EIR was a programmatic EIR and therefore such impacts would be evaluated as the individual project were proposed. Petitioner contends that enough was already known about shade impacts to provide a general sense of potential impacts of the Plan as a whole, and that such analysis should be done at the program level because of the nature of shadow impacts, which become greater when cumulated. He asserts that by permitting the City to put off comprehensive shade analysis, the EIR ensures the impacts will be analyzed one building at a time. Therefore, petitioner argues, the City will effectively relieve itself of having to address shade impact by relying on the program nature of the project, and the impact of shade on the Project Area will be chopped into many small pieces in violation of CEQAs command that projects not be piecemealed. (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 76-77 [problem of effects of piecemeal development escaping environmental review].)

An EIR must identity the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. (Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 492.) The level of analysis for an environmental impact discussed in an EIR should be proportional to its severity and probability of occurring. The degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. (a) An EIR on a construction project will necessarily be more detailed in the specific effects of the project than will be an EIR on the adoption of a local general plan or comprehensive zoning ordinance because the effects of the construction can be predicted with greater accuracy. (b) An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption, or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow. (CEQA Guidelines,  15146.)

In Towards Responsibility In Planning v. City Council (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 671 (TRIP), the city rezoned several parcels from agricultural to campus/industrial with the intention that they be developed for high technology industry. (Id.at p. 675.) The petitioners argued that the proposed development would precipitate the need for a new sewage treatment plant, and that the EIR did not address this impact. (Id.at p. 676.) TRIP concluded that such an analysis was premature. The city had in place a plan to monitor wastewater flows regularly; had on track a plan to upgrade and expand wastewater treatment; and would subject any expansion of the plant to full environmental review. In addition, city ordinances prohibited development approvals that would be in excess of the plants capacity. (Id.at p. 680.) It would be unreasonable to expect this EIR to produce detailed information about the environmental impacts of a future regional facility whose scope is uncertain and which will in any case be subject to its own environmental review. (Id.at p. 681; see also Riverwatch v. County of San Diego (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1448 (Riverwatch).) In Riverwatch, the developer sought to build a rock quarry in northeastern San Diego County. (Id.at p. 1435.) The truck traffic generated by the quarry would require the widening of a state highway, but the draft EIR, while recognizing the potential impact, did not analyze the realignment of the highway on a nearby floodplain. (Id.at pp. 1435-1436.) Nonetheless, this omission did not render the EIR defective. (Id.at p. 1448.) The project would not be able to go forward until Caltrans approved the widening of the highway. Therefore, the county could properly defer analysis because the EIR had served its informational function. (Id.at pp. 1450-1451.)

Here, we agree with the City that the EIR adequately discussed shade impacts in sufficient detail at the programmatic level. The EIR concluded that implementation of the project would result in new sources of increased shade, a potentially significant impact, but that no feasible mitigation was available to reduce shade to a less-than-significant level. The EIR noted, Due to the programmatic nature of this EIR, specific project level design plans (including building heights, positioning, and dimensions) are not viable at this time and a complete assessment of shade and shadow impacts or proposed development under the DSP is not possible. The EIR further notes that each future development will be subject to project-level review, and [t]he project-level design plans will be evaluated, as necessary, to determine the extent of potential shade and shadow impacts upon adjacent shadow-sensitive uses.

Nonetheless, petitioner refers us to the Final Greater Downtown Strategic Master EIR from 1996, in which a detailed shade analysis was conducted, complete with schematics showing the shade created at different times of the year by high-rise buildings. This does not mean, however, that the City was required to do a similar shade analysis for the DSP in order to comply with CEQA. Rather, the EIR recognizes the potential impact of shade and informs the public that this impact is likely not amenable to mitigation, but that each project will be evaluated on its own. At the program level, this discussion is sufficient to provide necessary information to public.

Furthermore, petitioners concerns that the total shade impacts created by the adoption of the DSP will escape meaningful environmental review because of the incremental nature of any subsequent EIRs for projects within the downtown area are without foundation. Piecemealing occurs where a project is split into segments with the result that its environmental impacts become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones each with minimal potential impact on the environment which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences. (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-284.) Here, no piecemealing will occur because each subsequent project will necessarily have as a baseline for environmental review those projects that have already been built according to the DSP. At that point in time, the project under consideration will be evaluated in accordance with its own new baseline, and accordingly shade impacts will be included in such review.

E. Large Projects in Approval Pipeline Wil