Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO Entered by:
Civil Department - Non-Limit‘ed g
TITLE 0F CASE:
City of Fresno vs County'of FresnoICEQA
Case Number:
,
LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER 11CECGOO766
Hearing Date: August 30, 2019 Hearing Type: Motion - Reconsideration
Department: 54 Judge/Temp. Judge: Culver Kapetan, Kristi
‘
Court Clerk: Yang, Mary , Reporter: Not
Reported
Appearing Parties:
'
'
Plaintiff: Defendant:
Counsel:
~
Counsel:
[ ]
Off Calendar
[
]Continued to [ ]Setfor _ at _ Dept. __ for _
[ ]
Submitted on points and authorities with/withoUt argument. [ ]
Matter is argued and submitted.
[ ]
Uponifiling of points and authorities.
[
]Motion isgranted [ ]in part and denied in part. [
]Motion isdenied [
]with/withoutprejudice.
‘
[
]Taken under advisement
[
]Demurrer [
]overruléd [
]sustained with _ daysto [
]answer [
]amend
[X] Tentative ruling'becomes the order of the court. No further order isneceésary.
[X] Pursuant to CRC 3.1 312(a) and CCP section 10,1 9.5(a),‘
no further order is necessary. The minute order adopting the
tentative ruling serves as the order of the court. ,
[X] Service by the clerk willconstitute notice of the order.
[X] See attached copy of the Tentative Ruling.
[ ]
Judgment debtor _ sworn andexamined.
[ ]
Judgment debtor _. failed to appear.
Bench warrant issued in the amount of $ _
JUDGMENT:
[ ]Money damages [
]Default [
-]Other _ entered inthe amountof: [
Principal $__ Interest $_ Costs $_ Attorney fees $__ Total $_ ;
[ ]Claim of exemption [ ]
granted [
]denied. Court orders withholdings modified to $__ per__ I
FURTHER, COURT ORDERS: .‘
‘
Monies held by levying officer to be [
‘]
released tojudgment creditor. [ ]
returned tojudgment debtor.
[ ] '
[ ]$__ to be released tojudgment creditor and balance returned tojudgment debtor.
[ ]
Levying Officer, County of_, notified. [
]Writ to issue
['
]
Notice to be filed within 15 days. [ ]
Restitution of Premises
‘
[ ]Other:_ ,
cv-14b R03-18 LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER
|--_.I_L__. r-..—
(17)
Tentafive Ruling
Re:
-
City of Fresno v. County of Fresno, et al.
Court Case No. HCECGOO706
Hearing Dofez Augus’r 30, 201 9 (Dept. 54)
Motion: Respondents' 0nd Real Party in In’reres’r's Join’r Mo’rion ’roVacate
0nd RecOnsider Judgment 0nd Wri’r
Ruling:
To deny.
Explanation:
Code of Civil Procedure section 663 “empowers a ’rriolcour’r, on motion of “[0]
porfy’ en’ri’rl[ed] ’ro o differen’r judgmen’r’ from Thon‘ which hos been entered, ’ro
”
voco’re judgment
i’rs 0nd en’rer ‘ono’rher 0nd different judgment! (Formon v. Knapp
Press (1985) 173 Col.App.3d 200, 203.) “A motion ’ro voco’re under [Code of Civil
Procedure] secTion 663 is o remedy To be used when o Trial court draws incorrect
conclusions of low or renders on erroneous judgment on The basis of uncontrover’red
evidence.” (Simac Design, Inc. v. Alciofi (1979) 92 C0l.App.3d 146, 153.) “In ruling on o
motion To vacate The judgment The court conno’r
'
“in ony way change any finding of
LLC
'
fact." [Ci101i0n.]" (Glen 'HiII Form, v. California Horse Racing Bd. (2010) 189
Col.App.4Th 1296, 1302.)
Respondent 0nd Real Por’ry in Interest (moving boflies) ask ’rhis cour’r To voco’re i’rs
March I9, 201 9 wri’r 0nd judgment and ins’reod em‘er moving por’ries‘ proposed wri’rand
proposed judgment. Moving parties con’rend Tho’r ’rhis court's writ 0nd judgment
improperly requires The County ’ro vacate or set aside all of iTs approvals for The Friont
Ranch Project. Moving porfies characterize This remedy os ”unnecessary 0nd contrary
to Public Resources Code section 21 168.9, which directs The courts ’ro norroWIy Tailor
wri’rs where doing so will no’r prevent The qge‘ncy from complying wi’rh CEQA.”
Secfion 21 168.9
Public Resources Code section 21 168.98 “wos enacted in 1984 for the purpose of
providing courts wi’rh some flexibility in tailoring The remedy ’ro The specific CEQA
violcn‘ion. [CitationsJ In 1993, sec’rion 21 168.9 was amended ’ro expand The ou’rhori’ry of
cour’rs ’ro fashion c remedy Tho’r permits o port of The project ’ro continue while The
agency Seeks ’ro correct ifs CEQA violofions. [Ci’rofion.]" (POET, LLC v. State Air
Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.AppATh 68L 756 (POET I).) The statutory lon‘guoge
supports on interpretation Tho’r 0 Trial court may implement o Targeted remedy Tho’r
does not necessarily include invalidating 0H project approvals. Once c cour’r finds “’rho’r
any determination, finding, or decision of o public agency hos been mode without
2
compliance wi’rh [CEQA],” section 21168.9, subdivision (0) describes The orders or
mondcn‘es o cour’r moy choose from when granting a pe’ri’rion. (Save Our Schools v.
Borsfow Unified School Dist Bd. of Education (2015) 240 Cal.AppATh 128, 144—145 (Save
Our Schools).) A cour’r may mondo’re: (1) fho’r The agency's “determination, finding, or
decision, be voided in whole or in part" (§ 21 168.9, subd. (a)(l), italics added); (2) if
The cour’r finds That cer’roin mitigation measures or alternatives will‘ be prejudiced if
specific projec’r activities continue, Tho’r ’rhe agency or developer “suspend ony or oll
specific 'projec’r oc’rivi’ty or oc’rivi’ries" Tho’r could ol’rer or adversely affect The physical
environment (§ 21 168.9, subdQ (o)(2)); or (3) That The agency ”Toke specific ocfion os
may be necessary ’robring ’rhe determination, finding, or decision in’ro compliance with
[CEQA]." (§ 21 168.9, subd.‘(0)(3); seeclso Center for Biological Diversify v. Dept. of Fish
0nd Wildlife (2017) 17 C0|.App.5’rh 1245, 1255—1256 (Cenfer for Biological Diversify III)
[sec’rion 21 168.9 authorizes Trialcour’r ’ro leave in place projec’r approvals unaffected by
the CEQA violation]; Preserve Wild Sam‘ee v. City of Sonfee (20] 2) 210 Col.App.4’rh 260,
286—288 (Preserve Sonfee) [rejecting orgumen’r Tha’r whenever o Trial court finds 0n EIR
inodequofe i’rmus’r decer’rify ’rhe EIR and vacate all related project approvals“ We also
no're ’rho’r The reference To cm agency's “determination, finding or decision" in
subdivisions (0H1) 0nd (OHS) 'sUpporTs o reasonable reading Tho’r 0 court may void or ,
order 0n agency To correc’r i’rsdetermination whiIe leaving The decision—i.e.,
approvol—in place. (Cenfer for Biological Diversify III, supra, 01‘ p. 1253 [“on EIR
cer’rificofibn iscm agency de’rerminofion [Thof] may be voided in pon‘ by o Trio] coun‘"].)
Section 21 168.9, subdivision (b) directs The cour’r ’ro limi’ri’rsmondo’re orders To
r_“only Those mandates which ore necessary to achieve compliance wi’rh this division
and only Those specific project oc’rivi’ries in noncompliance wi’rh This division." (§
21 168.9, subd. (b).) Such 0 limi’red order must be based on specific findings. A cour’r
issuing a IimiTed wrif of mandate under section 21 168.9, subdivision (b) mus’r moke Three
findings: "(1) The portion or specific projecT activity or activities ore severoble, (2)
severance will n01 prejudice complete 0nd fullcompliance wh‘h ’rhisdivision, and (3) The
cour’r hos no’r found the remainder of ’rhe project To be in noncompliance with This
division.” (§ 2] 168.9, subd. (b).) The limited mondo’re musT ”include only Those
mondo’res which ore necessary f0 achieve compliance wi’rh [CEQA]" 0nd should
specify who’r oc’rions ore “necessary To comply with [CEQA.]” (Ibid.) “[I]f The court finds
Tho’r i’r
will not prejudice full compliance wi’rh CEQA To leave some project approvals in
place, i’r mus’r leave Them unaffected. (Cenfer for Biological Diversify .III,supra, 17
Col.App.5’rh o’r p. 1255.) “[T]he ’rriol cour’r moy no’r direc’r The agency ’ro exercise its
discretion in o por’riculor way." (Preserve Som‘ee, supra, 21 O C01.App.4’rh 0T p. 287.)
This coun‘ will n01 voco’re March
i’r
19, 2019 wrh‘ 0nd en’rer o different writ 0nd
judgment. This cour’r conno’r make The findings required for severance under Public
Resources Code section 21 168.9 due ’ro The procedural posture of ’rhiscose. A cour’r
ruling on o Code of Civil Procedure 663 ccm make no new findings of foc’r. (Glen Hill
Form, LLC v. California Horse Racing Bd., supra, 89 Cal.AppATh of p. 1302.)
A close reading of ’rhe opinions issued by The California Supreme Cour’r 0nd Fifth
District Cour’r of Appeal do no’r contain foC’ruol findings suppor‘ring severance. The
Supreme Court‘s- disposition “offirm[ed] in por’r 0nd reverse[ed] in por’r The Cour’r of
Appeol's judgment 0nd remond[ed] The mofier for additional proceedings consistent
wh‘h ’rhis opinion." Such o disposition is ”on opproprio’re summary method of
3
incorporating by reference directions, os ’ro proceedings on a re’rriol, specifically
indicated in The body of The opinion.” (9 Wi’rkin, Col. Procedure (51h ed. 2008) Appeal, §
885, p. 946, italics added.) To deTermine who’r wos infended by The high cour’r‘s
“
disposition, iT musf ‘be read in conjunction wi’rh The appellate opinion cs c1 whole'
[citation] 0nd, considered in The framework of the sfo’ru’rory scheme To which h‘
relates.“ (In re.Condoce P. (1994) 24 Cal.AppA’rh H28, 1132.)
The opinion of The Fifth District Cour’r of Appeal expressly provided That The EIR
0nd project approvals would be se’r aside. “The superior cour’r sholl issue o peremptory
writ of mondofe Tho’r compels Coum‘y ’ro voco’re or se’r aside i’rsapproval of ’rhe Frion’r
Ranch projec’r 0nd directs Coumy n01 10 approve ’rhe project before preparing 0
revised EIR Tho’r (1) contains on analysis of The adverse human health impoc’rs Tho’r ore
likely ’ro result from The oir quality impoc’rs identified in ’rhe EIR; (2) addresses the
deficiencies concerning vagueness, enforceability 0nd lock of specific performance
s’rondords in Mh‘igofion Measure # 3.3.2; 0nd (3) addresses The issues relo’red To The
sto’remen’r Tho’r Those mitigation provisions will subston’riolly reduce air quoli’ry impoc’rs."
The Supreme Cour’r sToTed “’rhe EIR in This case“ foiled ’ro comply wi’rh CEQA.
(Sierra Club II,supra, 6 COLSTh o’r pp. 510.) “The EIR should be revised To relate The
expec’red adverse oir qualify impoc’rs ’ro likely heol’rh consequences or explain in
meaningful de’roil why i1 is no’r feasible OT the time Qf drafting To provide such cm
onolysis, so Tho? ’rhe public moy make informed decisions regarding The cosTs 0nd
benefits of The Projec’r." (lbid.) The por’rion of The Court of Appeol's judgment “finding
The ElR‘s analyses of fhe Project's air quoli’ry impoc’rs inadequate" was reversed. (Id. OT
p. 51 1.) The Supreme Cour’r explicitly did no’r reverse ’rhe Appellate Cour’r's direction ’ro
vacate or se’r aside ’rhe approval of ’rhe projeCT. Ins’reod, ’rhe Supreme Court‘s decision
‘
Twice confirms That The revised EIR would be necessary To ”inform The public." (ld., 01
pp. 510, 527.) ”.The EIR foils fo provide on odequo’re discussion of health 0nd safety
problems That will be caused by The rise in various pollu’ron’rs resul’ring from ’rhe Project's
developmenf. AT This poihf, we cannof know whether fhe required additional analysis
will disclose fhof the Project's effecfs on air qualify ore' less than significant or
unavoidable, or whefher that analysis will require reassessment of proposed mifigofion
measures. Absent on analysis Tho’r reasonably informs The public how-on’ricipofed oir
qualify effects will adversely offecf human health, on EIR may be
s’rill sufficient if if
adequately explains why i1is n01 scientifically feasible OT The Time of droffing to provide
such on analysis." (Id.,a’r p. 510.) Accordingly, The Supreme Court did no’r find Tho? The
flawed onolysis in ’rhe EIR was severoble from ony other pon‘ of The EIR, Ie’rclone The
‘
project approvals. ‘
The s’ro’rU’rory scheme which is The conTex’r for The High CourT's opinion (In re
Candace P., supra, 24 Cal.AppATh 01 p. 1 132) confirms Tho’r decer’tifico’rion of ’rhe entire
EIR is required. Sec’rion 21 168.9 gives Trial courts flexibility To Tailor 0 remedy ’ro fi’ro
specific CEQA violofion. (Preserve Santee, supra, 21 O Col.App.4’rh 260, 288.) However,
Three findings mus’r be mode: “(1) The portion or specific project oc’riviTy or oc’rivifies ore
severoble, (2) severance will no’r prejudice complete 0nd full compliance wi’rh This
division, 0nd (3) ’rhe court hos n01 found The remainder of ’rhe project ’ro be in
noncompliance with This division.” (§ 21 168.9, subd. (b).) Here, only The lost finding hos
been mode. Moreover, The project's operational effects on air quoli’ry ore no’r
severoble from The remainder of the EIR. Operational effec’rs on air qualify moy affect
4
mony other sections of The EIR. -
Land use, biological resources, 0nd Traffic onolysis ore
.
likely To be affected. Project changes or mifigofion measures needed f0 address
health impacts, [0nd use, cumulofive impoc’rs or Traffic changes could require
alterations to o’rher portions of the Project. The passage of eigh’r years since ’rhe ini’riol
Project approvals moy meon Tho’r oddi’rionol new mitigation options ore now feasible.
Alterations To The feasibility of mitigation measures could require revisions ’ro The EIR's
alternatives analysis. The Supreme Cour’r's requirement of a discussion tying Project
generated pollution To heoh‘h impacts will require revisions ’ro more Than The EIR's
analysis of Impact 3. 3. 2.Guidelines section 15088. 5 requires The Coun’ry to circulate The
modified portions of o new EIR for public review. Accordingly, The project approvals
mus’r be seT aside.
Neither party requested oral argument. Therefore, pursuon’r 1‘0quifornio Rules of
Cour’r, rule 3.1312(0) 0nd Code‘of Civil Procedure section 1019.45, subdivision (o), no
further wrifien order is necessary. The minu’re order adopting This Ten’rofive ruling will
serve cs The order of The cour’r 0nd service by ’rhe clerk will cons’m‘ufe no’rice of The
order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: KCK I
’
I
n ,0§Q9/19
(Judé 'sinifiols) (Do’re)
r
I
F0
x
SUPERIOR' COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO
CivilDepartment. Central Division
1 130
"O" Street
RHUSEELY
E
Fresno,California 93724-0002
AUG 3 0 2mg
(559) 457—2000
COUNTY COURTS
FREMS‘EO
TITLE OF CASE:
City of Fresno vs County of Fresno/CEQA
By
U DEPT 54
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE 0F MAILING CfiiECE‘égfis I
|certify thatl am not a party to this cause and that a true copy of the:
Minute Order and Tentative Ruling
was placed in a sealed envelope and placed for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown below
following our ordinary business practice. Iam readily familiar with this court's practice for collecting and processing
correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited
in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid.
a/w[_f>R
Place of mailings' Fresno,California 93724-0002
0n Date: 08/30/2019 ‘
Clerk, by
\VY
> '
.Deputy
June Ailin Bryan N Wagner J
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP 71 10 N. Fresno St, ste 340
2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475 Fresno, CA 93720
El Segundol, CA 90245
Bruce B. Johnson, JR Robert S Perlmutter
2220 Tulare Street, 5th Floor Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP
'
Fresno, CA 937.21 396 Hayes Street .
San Francisco, CA 94102
Tiffany Wright Douglas P. Carstens
Remy, Moose 8. Manley LLP Chatten-Brown, Carstens 8. Minteer, LLP
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Ste. 318
Sacramento, CA 95814 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
D Clerk's Certificate of Mailing Additional Address Page Attached
TGN-06b R08-06 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
_' ..‘ ‘, 7',,’ "Z
_.I,,.».‘. :' ‘: -\-|;
3‘ '.-
_ 3 5
3 .. 5;
_
if 1 3'. ‘1; .-|
‘
1
". ..
'
IA n.
U'. '..
‘
"
ii
4"5'“ ‘. "hi."
I I: 23ml
_.::'_,I
,I..'.'\ 1!:
.
‘
I
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO Entered by: Civil Department - Non-Limit‘ed g TITLE 0F CASE: City of Fresno vs County'of FresnoICEQA Case Number: , LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER 11CECGOO766 Hearing Date: August 30, 2019 Hearing Type: Motion - Reconsideration Department: 54 Judge/Temp. Judge: Culver Kapetan, Kristi ‘ Court Clerk: Yang, Mary , Reporter: Not Reported Appearing Parties: ' ' Plaintiff: Defendant: Counsel: ~ Counsel: [ ] Off Calendar [ ]Continued to [ ]Setfor _ at _ Dept. __ for _ [ ] Submitted on points and authorities with/withoUt argument. [ ] Matter is argued and submitted. [ ] Uponifiling of points and authorities. [ ]Motion isgranted [ ]in part and denied in part. [ ]Motion isdenied [ ]with/withoutprejudice. ‘ [ ]Taken under advisement [ ]Demurrer [ ]overruléd [ ]sustained with _ daysto [ ]answer [ ]amend [X] Tentative ruling'becomes the order of the court. No further order isneceésary. [X] Pursuant to CRC 3.1 312(a) and CCP section 10,1 9.5(a),‘ no further order is necessary. The minute order adopting the tentative ruling serves as the order of the court. , [X] Service by the clerk willconstitute notice of the order. [X] See attached copy of the Tentative Ruling. [ ] Judgment debtor _ sworn andexamined. [ ] Judgment debtor _. failed to appear. Bench warrant issued in the amount of $ _ JUDGMENT: [ ]Money damages [ ]Default [ -]Other _ entered inthe amountof: [ Principal $__ Interest $_ Costs $_ Attorney fees $__ Total $_ ; [ ]Claim of exemption [ ] granted [ ]denied. Court orders withholdings modified to $__ per__ I FURTHER, COURT ORDERS: .‘ ‘ Monies held by levying officer to be [ ‘] released tojudgment creditor. [ ] returned tojudgment debtor. [ ] ' [ ]$__ to be released tojudgment creditor and balance returned tojudgment debtor. [ ] Levying Officer, County of_, notified. [ ]Writ to issue [' ] Notice to be filed within 15 days. [ ] Restitution of Premises ‘ [ ]Other:_ , cv-14b R03-18 LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER |--_.I_L__. r-..— (17) Tentafive Ruling Re: - City of Fresno v. County of Fresno, et al. Court Case No. HCECGOO706 Hearing Dofez Augus’r 30, 201 9 (Dept. 54) Motion: Respondents' 0nd Real Party in In’reres’r's Join’r Mo’rion ’roVacate 0nd RecOnsider Judgment 0nd Wri’r Ruling: To deny. Explanation: Code of Civil Procedure section 663 “empowers a ’rriolcour’r, on motion of “[0] porfy’ en’ri’rl[ed] ’ro o differen’r judgmen’r’ from Thon‘ which hos been entered, ’ro ” voco’re judgment i’rs 0nd en’rer ‘ono’rher 0nd different judgment! (Formon v. Knapp Press (1985) 173 Col.App.3d 200, 203.) “A motion ’ro voco’re under [Code of Civil Procedure] secTion 663 is o remedy To be used when o Trial court draws incorrect conclusions of low or renders on erroneous judgment on The basis of uncontrover’red evidence.” (Simac Design, Inc. v. Alciofi (1979) 92 C0l.App.3d 146, 153.) “In ruling on o motion To vacate The judgment The court conno’r ' “in ony way change any finding of LLC ' fact." [Ci101i0n.]" (Glen 'HiII Form, v. California Horse Racing Bd. (2010) 189 Col.App.4Th 1296, 1302.) Respondent 0nd Real Por’ry in Interest (moving boflies) ask ’rhis cour’r To voco’re i’rs March I9, 201 9 wri’r 0nd judgment and ins’reod em‘er moving por’ries‘ proposed wri’rand proposed judgment. Moving parties con’rend Tho’r ’rhis court's writ 0nd judgment improperly requires The County ’ro vacate or set aside all of iTs approvals for The Friont Ranch Project. Moving porfies characterize This remedy os ”unnecessary 0nd contrary to Public Resources Code section 21 168.9, which directs The courts ’ro norroWIy Tailor wri’rs where doing so will no’r prevent The qge‘ncy from complying wi’rh CEQA.” Secfion 21 168.9 Public Resources Code section 21 168.98 “wos enacted in 1984 for the purpose of providing courts wi’rh some flexibility in tailoring The remedy ’ro The specific CEQA violcn‘ion. [CitationsJ In 1993, sec’rion 21 168.9 was amended ’ro expand The ou’rhori’ry of cour’rs ’ro fashion c remedy Tho’r permits o port of The project ’ro continue while The agency Seeks ’ro correct ifs CEQA violofions. [Ci’rofion.]" (POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.AppATh 68L 756 (POET I).) The statutory lon‘guoge supports on interpretation Tho’r 0 Trial court may implement o Targeted remedy Tho’r does not necessarily include invalidating 0H project approvals. Once c cour’r finds “’rho’r any determination, finding, or decision of o public agency hos been mode without 2 compliance wi’rh [CEQA],” section 21168.9, subdivision (0) describes The orders or mondcn‘es o cour’r moy choose from when granting a pe’ri’rion. (Save Our Schools v. Borsfow Unified School Dist Bd. of Education (2015) 240 Cal.AppATh 128, 144—145 (Save Our Schools).) A cour’r may mondo’re: (1) fho’r The agency's “determination, finding, or decision, be voided in whole or in part" (§ 21 168.9, subd. (a)(l), italics added); (2) if The cour’r finds That cer’roin mitigation measures or alternatives will‘ be prejudiced if specific projec’r activities continue, Tho’r ’rhe agency or developer “suspend ony or oll specific 'projec’r oc’rivi’ty or oc’rivi’ries" Tho’r could ol’rer or adversely affect The physical environment (§ 21 168.9, subdQ (o)(2)); or (3) That The agency ”Toke specific ocfion os may be necessary ’robring ’rhe determination, finding, or decision in’ro compliance with [CEQA]." (§ 21 168.9, subd.‘(0)(3); seeclso Center for Biological Diversify v. Dept. of Fish 0nd Wildlife (2017) 17 C0|.App.5’rh 1245, 1255—1256 (Cenfer for Biological Diversify III) [sec’rion 21 168.9 authorizes Trialcour’r ’ro leave in place projec’r approvals unaffected by the CEQA violation]; Preserve Wild Sam‘ee v. City of Sonfee (20] 2) 210 Col.App.4’rh 260, 286—288 (Preserve Sonfee) [rejecting orgumen’r Tha’r whenever o Trial court finds 0n EIR inodequofe i’rmus’r decer’rify ’rhe EIR and vacate all related project approvals“ We also no're ’rho’r The reference To cm agency's “determination, finding or decision" in subdivisions (0H1) 0nd (OHS) 'sUpporTs o reasonable reading Tho’r 0 court may void or , order 0n agency To correc’r i’rsdetermination whiIe leaving The decision—i.e., approvol—in place. (Cenfer for Biological Diversify III, supra, 01‘ p. 1253 [“on EIR cer’rificofibn iscm agency de’rerminofion [Thof] may be voided in pon‘ by o Trio] coun‘"].) Section 21 168.9, subdivision (b) directs The cour’r ’ro limi’ri’rsmondo’re orders To r_“only Those mandates which ore necessary to achieve compliance wi’rh this division and only Those specific project oc’rivi’ries in noncompliance wi’rh This division." (§ 21 168.9, subd. (b).) Such 0 limi’red order must be based on specific findings. A cour’r issuing a IimiTed wrif of mandate under section 21 168.9, subdivision (b) mus’r moke Three findings: "(1) The portion or specific projecT activity or activities ore severoble, (2) severance will n01 prejudice complete 0nd fullcompliance wh‘h ’rhisdivision, and (3) The cour’r hos no’r found the remainder of ’rhe project To be in noncompliance with This division.” (§ 2] 168.9, subd. (b).) The limited mondo’re musT ”include only Those mondo’res which ore necessary f0 achieve compliance wi’rh [CEQA]" 0nd should specify who’r oc’rions ore “necessary To comply with [CEQA.]” (Ibid.) “[I]f The court finds Tho’r i’r will not prejudice full compliance wi’rh CEQA To leave some project approvals in place, i’r mus’r leave Them unaffected. (Cenfer for Biological Diversify .III,supra, 17 Col.App.5’rh o’r p. 1255.) “[T]he ’rriol cour’r moy no’r direc’r The agency ’ro exercise its discretion in o por’riculor way." (Preserve Som‘ee, supra, 21 O C01.App.4’rh 0T p. 287.) This coun‘ will n01 voco’re March i’r 19, 2019 wrh‘ 0nd en’rer o different writ 0nd judgment. This cour’r conno’r make The findings required for severance under Public Resources Code section 21 168.9 due ’ro The procedural posture of ’rhiscose. A cour’r ruling on o Code of Civil Procedure 663 ccm make no new findings of foc’r. (Glen Hill Form, LLC v. California Horse Racing Bd., supra, 89 Cal.AppATh of p. 1302.) A close reading of ’rhe opinions issued by The California Supreme Cour’r 0nd Fifth District Cour’r of Appeal do no’r contain foC’ruol findings suppor‘ring severance. The Supreme Court‘s- disposition “offirm[ed] in por’r 0nd reverse[ed] in por’r The Cour’r of Appeol's judgment 0nd remond[ed] The mofier for additional proceedings consistent wh‘h ’rhis opinion." Such o disposition is ”on opproprio’re summary method of 3 incorporating by reference directions, os ’ro proceedings on a re’rriol, specifically indicated in The body of The opinion.” (9 Wi’rkin, Col. Procedure (51h ed. 2008) Appeal, § 885, p. 946, italics added.) To deTermine who’r wos infended by The high cour’r‘s “ disposition, iT musf ‘be read in conjunction wi’rh The appellate opinion cs c1 whole' [citation] 0nd, considered in The framework of the sfo’ru’rory scheme To which h‘ relates.“ (In re.Condoce P. (1994) 24 Cal.AppA’rh H28, 1132.) The opinion of The Fifth District Cour’r of Appeal expressly provided That The EIR 0nd project approvals would be se’r aside. “The superior cour’r sholl issue o peremptory writ of mondofe Tho’r compels Coum‘y ’ro voco’re or se’r aside i’rsapproval of ’rhe Frion’r Ranch projec’r 0nd directs Coumy n01 10 approve ’rhe project before preparing 0 revised EIR Tho’r (1) contains on analysis of The adverse human health impoc’rs Tho’r ore likely ’ro result from The oir quality impoc’rs identified in ’rhe EIR; (2) addresses the deficiencies concerning vagueness, enforceability 0nd lock of specific performance s’rondords in Mh‘igofion Measure # 3.3.2; 0nd (3) addresses The issues relo’red To The sto’remen’r Tho’r Those mitigation provisions will subston’riolly reduce air quoli’ry impoc’rs." The Supreme Cour’r sToTed “’rhe EIR in This case“ foiled ’ro comply wi’rh CEQA. (Sierra Club II,supra, 6 COLSTh o’r pp. 510.) “The EIR should be revised To relate The expec’red adverse oir qualify impoc’rs ’ro likely heol’rh consequences or explain in meaningful de’roil why i1 is no’r feasible OT the time Qf drafting To provide such cm onolysis, so Tho? ’rhe public moy make informed decisions regarding The cosTs 0nd benefits of The Projec’r." (lbid.) The por’rion of The Court of Appeol's judgment “finding The ElR‘s analyses of fhe Project's air quoli’ry impoc’rs inadequate" was reversed. (Id. OT p. 51 1.) The Supreme Cour’r explicitly did no’r reverse ’rhe Appellate Cour’r's direction ’ro vacate or se’r aside ’rhe approval of ’rhe projeCT. Ins’reod, ’rhe Supreme Court‘s decision ‘ Twice confirms That The revised EIR would be necessary To ”inform The public." (ld., 01 pp. 510, 527.) ”.The EIR foils fo provide on odequo’re discussion of health 0nd safety problems That will be caused by The rise in various pollu’ron’rs resul’ring from ’rhe Project's developmenf. AT This poihf, we cannof know whether fhe required additional analysis will disclose fhof the Project's effecfs on air qualify ore' less than significant or unavoidable, or whefher that analysis will require reassessment of proposed mifigofion measures. Absent on analysis Tho’r reasonably informs The public how-on’ricipofed oir qualify effects will adversely offecf human health, on EIR may be s’rill sufficient if if adequately explains why i1is n01 scientifically feasible OT The Time of droffing to provide such on analysis." (Id.,a’r p. 510.) Accordingly, The Supreme Court did no’r find Tho? The flawed onolysis in ’rhe EIR was severoble from ony other pon‘ of The EIR, Ie’rclone The ‘ project approvals. ‘ The s’ro’rU’rory scheme which is The conTex’r for The High CourT's opinion (In re Candace P., supra, 24 Cal.AppATh 01 p. 1 132) confirms Tho’r decer’tifico’rion of ’rhe entire EIR is required. Sec’rion 21 168.9 gives Trial courts flexibility To Tailor 0 remedy ’ro fi’ro specific CEQA violofion. (Preserve Santee, supra, 21 O Col.App.4’rh 260, 288.) However, Three findings mus’r be mode: “(1) The portion or specific project oc’riviTy or oc’rivifies ore severoble, (2) severance will no’r prejudice complete 0nd full compliance wi’rh This division, 0nd (3) ’rhe court hos n01 found The remainder of ’rhe project ’ro be in noncompliance with This division.” (§ 21 168.9, subd. (b).) Here, only The lost finding hos been mode. Moreover, The project's operational effects on air quoli’ry ore no’r severoble from The remainder of the EIR. Operational effec’rs on air qualify moy affect 4 mony other sections of The EIR. - Land use, biological resources, 0nd Traffic onolysis ore . likely To be affected. Project changes or mifigofion measures needed f0 address health impacts, [0nd use, cumulofive impoc’rs or Traffic changes could require alterations to o’rher portions of the Project. The passage of eigh’r years since ’rhe ini’riol Project approvals moy meon Tho’r oddi’rionol new mitigation options ore now feasible. Alterations To The feasibility of mitigation measures could require revisions ’ro The EIR's alternatives analysis. The Supreme Cour’r's requirement of a discussion tying Project generated pollution To heoh‘h impacts will require revisions ’ro more Than The EIR's analysis of Impact 3. 3. 2.Guidelines section 15088. 5 requires The Coun’ry to circulate The modified portions of o new EIR for public review. Accordingly, The project approvals mus’r be seT aside. Neither party requested oral argument. Therefore, pursuon’r 1‘0quifornio Rules of Cour’r, rule 3.1312(0) 0nd Code‘of Civil Procedure section 1019.45, subdivision (o), no further wrifien order is necessary. The minu’re order adopting This Ten’rofive ruling will serve cs The order of The cour’r 0nd service by ’rhe clerk will cons’m‘ufe no’rice of The order. Tentative Ruling Issued By: KCK I ’ I n ,0§Q9/19 (Judé 'sinifiols) (Do’re) r I F0 x SUPERIOR' COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO CivilDepartment. Central Division 1 130 "O" Street RHUSEELY E Fresno,California 93724-0002 AUG 3 0 2mg (559) 457—2000 COUNTY COURTS FREMS‘EO TITLE OF CASE: City of Fresno vs County of Fresno/CEQA By U DEPT 54 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE 0F MAILING CfiiECE‘égfis I |certify thatl am not a party to this cause and that a true copy of the: Minute Order and Tentative Ruling was placed in a sealed envelope and placed for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown below following our ordinary business practice. Iam readily familiar with this court's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid. a/w[_f>R Place of mailings' Fresno,California 93724-0002 0n Date: 08/30/2019 ‘ Clerk, by \VY > ' .Deputy June Ailin Bryan N Wagner J Aleshire & Wynder, LLP 71 10 N. Fresno St, ste 340 2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475 Fresno, CA 93720 El Segundol, CA 90245 Bruce B. Johnson, JR Robert S Perlmutter 2220 Tulare Street, 5th Floor Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP ' Fresno, CA 937.21 396 Hayes Street . San Francisco, CA 94102 Tiffany Wright Douglas P. Carstens Remy, Moose 8. Manley LLP Chatten-Brown, Carstens 8. Minteer, LLP 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Ste. 318 Sacramento, CA 95814 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 D Clerk's Certificate of Mailing Additional Address Page Attached TGN-06b R08-06 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING _' ..‘ ‘, 7',,’ "Z _.I,,.».‘. :' ‘: -\-|; 3‘ '.- _ 3 5 3 .. 5; _ if 1 3'. ‘1; .-| ‘ 1 ". .. ' IA n. U'. '.. ‘ " ii 4"5'“ ‘. "hi." I I: 23ml _.::'_,I ,I..'.'\ 1!: . ‘ I