McCann v. City of San Diego CA4/1

Filed 7/19/23 McCann v. City of San Diego CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

COURT OF APPEL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

MARGARET MCCANN, D081185

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
(Super. Ct. No. 37-2019-
CITY OF SAN DIEGO et. al., 00011813-CU-TT-CTL)

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Timothy B. Taylor, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Law Office of Todd T. Cardiff, Todd T. Cardiff for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
Mara W. Elliot, City Attorney, M. Travis Phelps, Assistant City
Attorney, and Jana Mickova Will, Deputy City Attorney for Defendants and
Appellants.
 INTRODUCTION
This is the second appeal arising from Margaret McCann’s dispute with
the City of San Diego (City) over the City’s environmental review process of a
project to convert overhead utility wires to an underground system in several
neighborhoods. (See McCann v. City of San Diego et.al. (2021) 70
Cal.App.5th 51 (McCann I).) In the first appeal, McCann alleged the City
violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources

Code, § 21000 et seq.)1 by failing to properly consider the environmental
impact of two undergrounding projects. (McCann I, supra, at p. 51.) We
concluded the City’s environmental review process was incomplete as to one
set of projects that were approved through a mitigated negative declaration
(MND Projects), because the City failed to analyze whether they were
consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan. (Id. at pp. 91-97.) We
reversed the judgment as to the MND Projects and directed the trial court to
issue a peremptory writ of mandate ordering the City to set aside three
resolutions that approved the projects. (Id. at p. 99.)

1 Further unspecified section references are to the Public Resources
Code.

2
 On remand, the trial court issued a peremptory writ of mandate
ordering the City to set aside the resolutions that approved the MND
Projects. The trial court also ordered that it would retain jurisdiction over
the matter until it determined the City complied with the relevant provisions
of CEQA. The City rescinded the project approvals as directed by the trial
court and asked the court to discharge the writ. McCann objected to the
City’s return and argued that the trial court should not discharge the writ
because the City did not perform the relevant environmental analysis or
affirmatively indicate that it abandoned the projects. The trial court
sustained McCann’s objection and declined to discharge the writ.
The City appeals the trial court’s post-judgment order declining to
discharge the writ. The City argues it has fully complied with the directives
of the writ, as well as the remedial provisions of CEQA, and therefore the
trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to discharge the writ. As
we discuss, we conclude the City has fully satisfied the writ and therefore the
writ must be discharged.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. McCann I

The factual details of this case are fully set forth in our prior opinion in
McCann I and we need not fully recount them here; we limit our discussion of
those facts necessary to reach the appropriate disposition in the instant case.
It suffices to say that the dispute in this case is related to the City’s “decades-
long effort to convert its overhead utility systems, suspended on wooden
poles, to an underground system.” (McCann I, supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p.
66.) McCann, a resident of a neighborhood within the undergrounding
project, challenged, inter alia, the need for the underground system to be
supplemented with above-ground transformers housed in three-foot-tall

3
metal boxes in the public right-of-way. (Id. at p. 65.) On appeal, she argued
that the City failed to complete the requisite environmental review process
delineated in CEQA for two sets of projects within the City’s broader
undergrounding plan. (Ibid.)
As to the first set of projects, McCann argued the City erred when it
determined the projects were exempt from CEQA. (McCann I, supra, 70
Cal.App.5th at pp. 65-66.) We concluded McCann’s claims were barred
because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies set forth in the
San Diego Municipal Code requiring her to file an administrative appeal of
the exemption determination. (Id. at p. 76.)
The second set of projects—the MND Projects at issue in this case—
were approved by the City through the use of a mitigated negative
declaration. (McCann I, supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 71.) McCann argued
that the City violated CEQA by: (1) impermissibly segmenting the citywide
undergrounding project into smaller projects; (2) not defining the location of
each transformer box before considering the environmental impact of the
plan; (3) failing to consider the significant impact on aesthetics caused by the
projects; and (4) determining that the projects would not have a significant
environmental impact due to the greenhouse (GHG) emissions. (Id. at p. 66.)
We rejected each of McCann’s assertions, except for her claim that
substantial evidence did not support the City’s finding that the projects
would not have a significant environmental impact due to GHG emissions.
(Id. at pp. 84-91.) We concluded that because the City did not analyze
whether the projects were consistent with the GHG reduction measures
included in the City’s Climate Action Plan, substantial evidence did not
support the City’s finding that the projects would not have a significant
environmental impact. (Id. at p. 91.)

4
 Accordingly, in McCann I, we reversed the trial court’s judgment as to
the MND Projects and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. (McCann
I, supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at pp. 98-99.) Our disposition directed the trial court
to “enter a new judgment granting the petition as to the second cause of
action challenging the MND Projects and to issue a peremptory writ of
mandate directing the City to set aside its March 5 and March 7, 2019,
resolutions adopting the mitigated negative declaration, the mitigation
monitoring and reporting program, and establishing the relevant utility
undergrounding districts.” (Id. at p. 98.)
B. Proceedings on Remand

On March 25, 2022, the trial court issued a peremptory writ of mandate
ordering the City to set aside the March 5 and March 7, 2019, resolutions.
The trial court further ordered the City to suspend all activity related to the
projects that may result in any change to the physical environment until the
City reconsidered the rescinded resolutions and brought them into
compliance with the requirements of CEQA. The court explained that the
writ did not purport to direct the City to exercise its lawful discretion in any
particular way, and that the court would retain jurisdiction over the matter
by way of a return, pursuant to section 21168.9, subdivision (b), until the
court determined the City complied with CEQA.
On June 15, 2022, the City filed a return to the peremptory writ of
mandate. Resolution No. 314160—a resolution passed by the San Diego City
Council on June 14, 2022—was included as an exhibit to the City’s return.
The resolution rescinded the March 2019 resolutions that established and
approved the MND Projects. Specifically, Resolution No. 314160 declared,
“the Council rescinds the certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
approved by the Council through [the March 5, 2019, resolution]; rescinds

5
establishing UU602 Sampson Street, UU61 Redwood Street, UU616 Hilltop
Drive PH II, and UU628 Fairmount Avenue Underground Utility Districts,
approved by the Council through [the March 7, 2019, resolution]; and
rescinds establishing UU908 Block 3DD, UU789 Block 4Y1, UU875 Block
6H1, and UU668 Block 8R1 Underground Utility Districts, approved by the
Council through [the March 7, 2019, resolution].”
In their return, the City asked the trial court to discharge the writ and
vacate an order to show cause related to contempt proceedings that are not
relevant to the issues raised in this appeal. McCann filed an objection to the
City’s return and argued that the writ should not be discharged until the City
proved it complied with CEQA by preparing a legally sufficient
environmental analysis of the GHG emissions of the MND Projects. The City
filed a response to McCann’s objection and argued that they had fully
complied with the terms of the writ by rescinding the project approvals.
The trial court issued a tentative ruling sustaining McCann’s objection
and heard argument from the parties the following day. The City argued
that the disputed MND Projects had been completely rescinded and therefore
the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to discharge the writ. The
City expressly told the court “the projects have been rescinded. So there is no
project and that’s not in dispute.”
The trial court sustained McCann’s objection and confirmed its
tentative ruling. In rendering its ruling, the court recognized that case law
would seemingly allow McCann to simply file a supplemental or new petition
to challenge the City’s future compliance with CEQA as it relates to the
undergrounding projects. Nevertheless, the trial court concluded, “based on
this particular writ and the status of this particular case and the verbiage of
this particular return, the court sustains [McCann’s] objection and declines to

6
discharge the writ at this time. The state of affairs will persist until the City
files a supplemental return which allows the court to conclude the City has
complied with the provisions of CEQA.” The City timely appealed the trial
court’s post-judgment order denying its request to discharge the writ.
II. DISCUSSION
The City argues it complied with the directives of the trial court’s
peremptory writ of mandate, as well as the remedial provisions set forth in
section 21168.9, subdivision (a)(1), by rescinding the MND Projects
approvals. Thus, the City contends that the trial court exceeded its
jurisdiction by declining to discharge the writ after the writ was fully
satisfied. McCann agrees that the writ may be discharged “[i]f the City no
longer intends to move forward with the project” because CEQA does not
apply to projects that have been rejected or denied. However, she contends
the evidence demonstrates the City “intends to re-analyze the GHG emissions
and re-circulate the MND” rather than abandon the disputed projects.
Because the City has provided no evidence that they have conducted the
requisite GHG analysis, McCann argues section 21168.9, subdivision (b),
“imposes a mandatory duty on the trial court to exercise continuing
jurisdiction over the City’s proceedings” until the requirements of CEQA have

7
been met.2 As we discuss, we conclude the City has fully satisfied the writ
and therefore the writ must be discharged.
A. General Legal Principles

“CEQA was enacted to advance four related purposes: to (1) inform the
government and public about a proposed activity’s potential environmental
impacts; (2) identify ways to reduce, or avoid, environmental damage;
(3) prevent environmental damage by requiring project changes via
alternatives or mitigation measures when feasible; and (4) disclose to the
public the rationale for governmental approval of a project that may
significantly impact the environment.” (California Building Industry Assn. v.
Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 382.) When a
governmental agency, such as the City, has violated CEQA, “[t]he mechanism
through which the remedy or remedies are implemented [to correct the CEQA
violation] is a peremptory writ of mandate.” (POET, LLC v. State Air
Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 756.) Section 21168.9 governs the
issuance of such a writ and provides for three types of mandates that may
issue. (§ 21168.9, subd. (a).) The governmental agency may be directed “(1)
to void, in whole or in part, a determination, finding or decision, (2) to
‘suspend any or all specific project activity or activities’ if certain conditions
exist, or (3) to take specific action necessary to bring the determination,

2 McCann also argues that the City is substantively appealing from the
“wording of the writ”—an argument the City waived by failing to object in the
trial court. We find no merit to this claim. The adequacy of the City’s return
necessarily depends on the orders expressed within the writ, and therefore a
discussion of the language within the writ is necessary to determine whether
the writ has been fully satisfied. (See POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd.
(2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 52, 63 [interpreting the meaning of a writ of mandate
de novo to determine if the agency’s actions complied with the terms of the
writ].)

8
finding or decision tainted by the CEQA violation into compliance with
CEQA.” (POET, LLC, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 757.) The court issuing
the writ has discretion to choose which of the three mandates is appropriate
under the circumstances and may impose more than one mandate. (Ibid.)
Once a peremptory writ of mandate has been issued, the court “should
order the agency to file a return by a date certain informing the court of the
agency's actions in compliance with the writ. [Citations.] [Section] 21168.9,
subdivision (b) states, in relevant part, ‘The trial court shall retain
jurisdiction over the public agency's proceedings by way of a return to the
peremptory writ until the court has determined that the public agency has
complied with this division.’ This statutory provision for the retention of
jurisdiction reflects the rule that a court issuing a peremptory writ of
mandate retains jurisdiction to determine the adequacy of the return and
ensure full compliance with the writ.” (Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City
of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 479 (Ballona), citing Carmel–by–
the–Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 964, 971.)
We independently interpret the terms of the peremptory writ of
mandate as a question of law, but we review the adequacy of the City’s return
under an abuse of discretion standard of review because the “attempt to
comply with the writ is, for all practical purposes, an attempt to comply with
CEQA.” (POET, LLC, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 62.) In this context, an
abuse of discretion “is established ‘if the agency has not proceeded in a
manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported
by substantial evidence.’ [Citations.]” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible
Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 426.)

9
 B. Analysis
In McCann I, we directed the trial court to, “issue a peremptory writ of
mandate directing the City to set aside its March 5 and March 7, 2019,
resolutions adopting the mitigated negative declaration, the mitigation
monitoring and reporting program, and establishing the relevant utility
undergrounding districts.” (McCann I, supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 98.) This
order was authorized by section 21168.9, subdivision (a)(1), which permits
the court to order a public agency to void a “determination, finding, or
decision,” in violation of CEQA, in whole or in part. The trial court complied
with our order and issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the City to
“set aside” the resolutions approving the disputed MND undergrounding
Projects. The writ did not direct the City to perform any other remedial
action aside from rescinding the resolutions approving the MND projects and
halting any further activity on the projects that may alter the environment—
nor did we direct the trial court to order any further remedial action in
McCann I.
Accordingly, because the City complied with the trial court’s writ of
mandate, as directed in our disposition in McCann I, we perceive no abuse of
discretion by the City. The City’s return included Resolution No. 314160,
which affirmed that the San Diego City Council rescinded the resolutions
approving the MND Projects. The City’s recission of the resolutions satisfies
the writ’s order that the City “set aside” the March 5 and 7, 2019, resolutions.
Voiding a project approval is a remedial mandate authorized by section
21168.9, subdivision (a)(1), and we conclude that the City has adequately
complied with this section by rescinding the MND Projects approvals. (See
Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1423 [court issued a
peremptory writ of mandate ordering the agency to void a project approval

10
under section 21168.9, subdivision (a)(1), but did not require further
corrective action].)
Section 21168.9, subdivision (c), confers equitable powers on the trial
court to issue orders to compel compliance with a peremptory writ of mandate
(§ 21168.9, subd. (c); POET, LLC, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at pp. 86-87), but
once an agency has fully satisfied the writ, the trial court no longer has
continuing jurisdiction over the matter. (See County of Inyo (1977) 71
Cal.App.3d 185, 205 [the court has “continuing jurisdiction to enforce the writ
until it is fully satisfied” (italics added)]; Ballona, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at
p. 480 [“the trial court's retained jurisdiction under…section 21168.9,
subdivision (b), is limited to ensuring compliance with the peremptory writ of
mandate” (italics added)].) Because we conclude the City’s recission of the
MND projects approvals has satisfied the writ, we also conclude the trial
court’s failure to discharge the writ and terminate its jurisdiction constitutes
an abuse of discretion. (See Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. East Bay
Regional Park Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 353, 368 [“We review the trial
court's exercise of its equitable powers [in a CEQA case] for abuse of
discretion.”].)
Having concluded the City has satisfied the writ, we next address the
parties’ contentions regarding the extent of the trial court’s continuing
jurisdiction to enforce the City’s future compliance with CEQA as it relates to
the rescinded MND Projects. McCann acknowledges that the MND Projects
approvals have been rescinded, but she argues section 21168.9, subdivision
(b), authorizes the trial court to retain “jurisdiction over the City’s
proceedings until it finds that the City has complied with CEQA.” The City
argues that section 21168.9, subdivision (b), confers only limited continuing
jurisdiction on a trial court when “the offending project or CEQA

11
determination is severed and some non-offending portion of the approval is
left in place.”
“ ‘[Q]uestions of interpretation or application of the requirements of
CEQA are matters of law’ ” subject to de novo review. (San Lorenzo Valley
Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley
Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1375.) However, “[i]f the
statutory language is clear and unambiguous, our task [of interpreting the
statute] is at an end, for there is no need for judicial construction.” (MacIsaac
v. Waste Management Collection & Recycling, Inc. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th
1076, 1083.) Section 21168.9, subdivision (b), clearly and unambiguously
states that the trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce a peremptory writ of
mandate “until the court has determined that the public agency has complied
with this division.” (Italics added). In this case, the relevant provisions of
“this division,” are section 21168.9, subdivisions (a)(1) and (2), which the trial
court relied on to order the City to rescind its project approvals and to take no
further action that could damage or alter the physical environment. The trial
court did not issue a mandate under section 21168.9, subdivision (a)(3), to

12
perform any specific corrective action, nor did we direct the trial court to do

so in McCann I.3
Case law has repeatedly applied the language of section 21168.9,
subdivision (b), to confer continuing jurisdiction on the trial court to enforce
the writ until the writ is satisfied. (See Ione Valley Land, Air, & Water
Defense Alliance, LLC v. County of Amador (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 165, 170
[“trial court retained jurisdiction over the matter until the city complied with
the writ”]; Ballona, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 479 [“the retention of
jurisdiction [provided for in section 21168.9, subdivision (b)] reflects the rule
that a court issuing a peremptory writ of mandate retains jurisdiction to
determine the adequacy of the return and ensure full compliance with the
writ”].) Contrary to McCann’s argument, section 21168.9, subdivision (b),
does not suggest that the trial court retains jurisdiction in perpetuity based
on the hypothetical possibility that the City moves forward with the same

3 There are circumstances in which the court may order specific
corrective action under CEQA, but in McCann I we did no more than order
the rescission of the project approvals. (See e.g. POET, LLC, supra, 218
Cal.App.4th at pp. 764-767 [providing detailed guidance on the steps
necessary to comply with CEQA and compelling the agency to take specific
actions].) Although we made clear in our discussion in McCann I that the
MND Projects will not be in compliance with CEQA unless and until the City
performs the “required analysis to determine whether the MND Projects
[were] consistent with the Climate Action Plan,” we did not direct the trial
court to order such an analysis. (McCann I, supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 97.)
We declined to make such an order because nothing in the record supported a
“fair argument that the MND Projects [were] inconsistent with the reduction
measures identified by the City in the Climate Action Plan,” and we therefore
left the matter to the City’s discretion to perform the appropriate analysis
and determine whether to proceed by an MND or an environmental impact
report. (Ibid.) Whether the City moves forward with the MND Projects and
performs the requisite analysis for CEQA approval is a matter of its
discretion and we may not direct the City to “exercise its discretion in any
particular way.” (§ 21168.9, subd. (c).)

13
projects in the future.4 And no provision of section 21168.9, subdivision (b),
or any related case law, supports the City’s argument that the trial court only
has continuing jurisdiction to enforce remedial provisions within a
peremptory writ of mandate for projects that have been “severed.” The
statute simply confers continuing jurisdiction on the trial court to enforce the
writ until the agency has complied with its mandates—which the City did
here by rescinding the MND Projects approvals.
However, McCann expresses concern that the trial court is, in effect,
making a finding that the City has complied with CEQA by discharging the
writ. She contends that such a finding precludes future challenges to the
adequacy of the City’s environmental review of the MND Projects under the
principles of res judicata. McCann cites to Silverado Modjeska Recreation &
Park Dist. v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 282 (Silverado) in
support of her argument and states that “[i]f the court discharges the writ
and petitioner does not appeal the discharge of the writ, compliance with
CEQA is presumed and considered res judicata.” She urges this court to
“explain how the doctrine of res judicata would apply to any subsequent
litigation challenging the same or substantially the same project” in our
ruling.
We decline to conjecture about the ways in which res judicata may or
may not affect a future hypothetical project. As we explained in McCann I,
the MND undergrounding Projects will not be in compliance with CEQA

4 McCann cites to County of Inyo v. City of L.A. (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 1
(Inyo), for the proposition that the return to the writ process may last for
years. We don’t disagree that this timeframe may be lengthy, but in Inyo, the
process lasted for years because the court ordered the agency to prepare an
environmental impact report that was the subject of continued litigation.
(Inyo, supra, at p. 3.) Here, we did not order the City to prepare such an
analysis, but merely directed it to rescind the disputed project approvals.

14
unless the City performs the “required analysis to determine whether the
projects were consistent with the Climate Action Plan.” (McCann I, supra, 70
Cal.App.5th at p. 97.) The City has exercised its discretion not to move
forward with the projects and perform this analysis at this time—rather it
has simply rescinded the project approvals as mandated by the writ.
Whether the City will choose to move forward with the same or substantially
same projects in the future is a matter we cannot predict. Nor may we
predict, based on the facts before us, the application of res judicata on future
claims relating to the environmental reviews already performed on the MND
Projects.
We note, however, that McCann’s reliance on Silverado is misplaced
insofar as she argues that the case precludes future challenges to the MND
Projects entirely. In Silverado, the trial court issued a writ ordering the
governmental agency to “ ‘[o]btain a study of the baseline water conditions
and quality in the project area,’ ” and to “ ‘[p]repare and circulate a
supplemental EIR disclosing and evaluating the baseline water data collected
and tested for, and the baseline water conditions and quality reviewed in, the
study....’ ” (Silverado, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 292.) The writ further
ordered the agency to provide public hearings on the actions that it took “ ‘to
comply with this Court's judgment and writ.’ ” (Ibid.) The agency complied
with the writ and conducted the relevant studies and public hearings. (Id. at
p. 295.) After extensive briefing by the parties on whether the studies
complied with the writ and CEQA, the trial court concluded the agency had
complied and discharged the writ. (Ibid.) The petitioner in Silverado did not
appeal the order discharging the writ, but instead filed a new petition
challenging the supplemental environmental impact report. (Ibid.) The
Silverado court concluded the petition was barred by res judicata because the

15
adequacy of the supplemental environmental impact report had been fully
adjudicated on the merits in the prior proceeding. (Id. at p. 298.)
Here, unlike the water analysis in Silverado, there has been no
adjudication of the adequacy of the City’s GHG emission analysis because, as
the City acknowledges, no such analysis has been performed. Because the
GHG emission analysis has not been conducted, whether a full
environmental impact report will be required under CEQA has not been
adjudicated on the merits. (See Federation of Hillside & Canyon Assns. v.
City of Los Angeles (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1202 [res judicata applies if
“the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits”].) The
discharge of the writ in this case does not suggest that the City has
completed the requisite environmental analysis of the MND Projects, but
merely reflects that the City has complied with mandates of the writ by
rescinding the project approvals.
Accordingly, because the City fully satisfied the peremptory writ of
mandate by rescinding the MND Projects approvals, the writ must be
discharged.
DISPOSITION
The order sustaining McCann’s objections and denying the City’s
request to discharge the writ is reversed. The trial court is directed to vacate
that order and enter a new order discharging the peremptory writ of mandate
on the grounds the City has complied with the writ by setting aside its March
5 and March 7, 2019, resolutions adopting the mitigated negative declaration,
the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and establishing the

16
relevant utility undergrounding districts. The parties are to bear their own
costs on appeal.

McCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, J.

CASTILLO, J.

17