232 Cal. App. 4th 105
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Fresno County certified the FEIR for the Carmelita Mine and Reclamation Project (1,500-acre site near Sanger/Reedley).
- Friends of the Kings River challenged CEQA compliance by petitioning for a writ of mandate against the EIR certification and Project approval.
- SMGB designation appeals by Friends remanded the reclamation plan to County for reconsideration, with SMGB upholding County on the second designation appeal.
- Trial court denied Friends’ petition in November 2013; Friends appealed in January 2014.
- Court held that SMGB remand did not invalidate County’s reclamation plan or FEIR and evidence of SMGB proceedings was excluded from CEQA review as extra-record evidence.
- Court affirmed judgment for respondents and awarded costs to respondents/real parties in interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness of CEQA challenge given SMGB remand | Friends argued review was not ripe until reclamation plan finalized. | Respondents argued petition was ripe at filing regardless of SMGB proceedings. | Petition was ripe; trial court could grant relief despite SMGB remand. |
| Effect of SMGB remand on reclamation plan and EIR validity | Remand set aside County's reclamation plan and invalidated EIR. | SMGB cannot set aside lead agency approvals; remand for reconsideration only. | SMGB had no authority to set aside County’s approval; remand did not invalidate EIR or CUP. |
| CEQA adequacy of project description and nighttime operations | EIR inadequately described nighttime operations and postmining water balance. | EIR provided a clear project description; nighttime operations limited by mitigation; water balance not mandatory. | Project description adequate; nighttime operations not unlimited; water balance not required for CEQA compliance. |
| Mitigation for loss of farmland (ACE consideration) under CEQA | ACE mitigation should have been adopted to offset farmland loss. | Three feasible CEQA mitigation measures (AG-1 to AG-3) were considered and ACEs discussed; not mandatory. | County properly considered ACEs but was not required to adopt them; three mitigation measures sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (1988) (CEQA review must be informative and substantial evidence standard applies)
- Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Commission, 33 Cal.3d 159 (1982) (Ripeness; circumstantial review limitations)
- Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. County of Tulare, 70 Cal.App.4th 20 (1999) (Project description sufficiency; general vs. specific description)
- Masonite Corp. v. County of Mendocino, 218 Cal.App.4th 230 (2013) (ACEs may mitigate direct farmland loss; not always mandatory)
- County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency, 76 Cal.App.4th 931 (1999) (Remand context; agency powers and effect of higher-level approvals)
- Lodi v. City of Lodi, 205 Cal.App.4th 296 (2012) (Requirement to discuss feasible mitigation measures; proper evaluation of alternatives)