Cherry Valley Pass Acres & Neighbors v. City of Beaumont
190 Cal. App. 4th 316
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Beaumont City approved Sunny-Cal Egg & Poultry’s 200-acre Sunny-Cal Specific Plan (SCSP) for 560 residential units near Cherry Valley and certified an EIR with an overriding considerations finding in Aug. 2007.
- SCSP relied on Sunny-Cal’s Beaumont Basin groundwater entitlement (1,484 afy) transferred/earmarked to BCVWD to meet project water needs, with up to 531 afy for SCSP use.
- In 2004–2005, a groundwater adjudication and a 2004 Judgment established overlying rights and a safe yield for Beaumont Basin (8,650 afy) and directed a physical solution and a Watermaster to manage groundwater,” while Sunny-Cal pledged to allocate its entitlement to BCVWD.
- A 2005 Water Supply Assessment (WSA) and the 2005 UWMP Update anticipated long-term supplies from Beaumont Basin, Edgar Canyon, recycled water, stormwater recharge, and SWP imports, with conflicting estimates between the WSA and UWMP.
- The City adopted the EIR’s baseline of Sunny-Cal’s 1,484 afy entitlement rather than Sunny-Cal’s 50 afy current use, and concluded the SCSP’s worst-case water use would be 531 afy, not triggering significant impacts overall.
- Plaintiffs challenged the EIR’s water baseline, the adequacy of the analysis of water supplies and impacts, and the mitigation/alternatives for agricultural lands; the court ultimately affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the EIR used a proper baseline for water impacts | Sunny-Cal’s 50 afy actual use post-2005 should set baseline. | Baseline valid as Sunny-Cal 1,484 afy entitlement existed and was transferred/earmarked. | Baselineproper; 1,484 afy reflects existing conditions and rights. |
| Whether the EIR adequately analyzes long-term water supply feasibility | WSA/UWMP unreliable; not enough evidence to show future water availability. | CEQA requires reasonable likelihood of available water from identified sources; evidence supports availability. | EIR showed reasonable likelihood of 531 afy supply from Sunny-Cal entitlement. |
| Whether agricultural land impacts were properly mitigated or its alternatives analyzed | Offsite land purchases, conservation easements, Williamson Act contracts, and fees were feasible but not analyzed. | Long-term agricultural uses no longer economically feasible; offsite mitigations infeasible; alternatives analyzed for feasibility. | EIR adequately discussed feasible mitigations and alternatives; offsite measures deemed infeasible. |
| Whether overriding considerations are supported by substantial evidence | Benefits rely on speculative water sources and inadequate data. | Multiple substantial evidence supports benefits (housing, infrastructure, open space, water relief via transfer). | Overriding considerations supported by substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2007) (established standards for long-term water supply analysis in CEQA)
- Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 48 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2010) (baseline and CEQA analysis standards)
- Goleta Valley Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553 (Cal. 1990) (core CEQA mitigation/alternatives doctrine)
- Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno, 150 Cal.App.4th 683 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (baselines and hypothetical conditions as baselines improper)
- CBE v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 200 Cal.App.4th 106 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (illustrates improper baselines and information deficiencies)
- EPIC v. County of El Dorado, 131 Cal.App.3d 350 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (use of hypothetical baselines is improper)
- Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle, 83 Cal.App.4th 74 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (quantification of groundwater basins for impact analyses)
- Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, 87 Cal.App.4th 99 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (baseline/impact analysis precedents in CEQA)
- Goleta Valley, supra, 52 Cal.3d 553 (Cal. 1990) (listed above; see Goleta Valley for mitigation/alternatives)