Habitat & Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz
213 Cal. App. 4th 1277
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Habitat challenged the City’s CEQA compliance after the City certified a final EIR for a North Campus water/sewer services project pending LAFCO approval of an SOI amendment and Regents’ extraterritorial service requests.
- The project arises from the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement (CSA) with conditions tied to LAFCO approval and a housing commitment by UCSC contingent on LAFCO action and no opposition to Regents’ extraterritorial services.
- The EIR analyzed water supply, watershed and biological resources, indirect growth, and mitigation but Habitat claimed omissions and misdescriptions, especially regarding alternatives.
- The CSA/settlement arrangement positioned multiple actors (City, LAFCO, Regents) as participants in the “whole” project that CEQA requires to be evaluated.
- The trial court denied Habitat’s CEQA petition; Habitat appealed challenging the EIR’s adequacy, findings, and overriding considerations.
- On review, the court reversed the EIR’s certification due to the failure to discuss any feasible alternative (e.g., a limited-water alternative) that could lessen the water-supply impact, remanding for new judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the EIR adequate on water supply impacts? | Habitat asserts the EIR failed to discuss feasible water supply impacts. | City/Regents argue prior analyses were adequate and uncertainties acknowledged. | No; final EIR inadequate for not examining feasible alternatives to lessen water impact. |
| Did the EIR consider a feasible alternative to reduce environmental effects? | Habitat contends the EIR did not analyze a limited-water or other feasible alternative. | City/Regents maintained alternatives were infeasible or outside agency control. | No; CEQA requires consideration of feasible alternatives; limited-water alternative should have been analyzed. |
| Were project objectives misdescribed or clarified to affect alternatives/mitigation? | Draft EIR misstated objectives; may have restricted alternatives. | CSA and final EIR clarified objectives and aligned with discretionary decisions. | Draft EIR objective description was corrected in the final EIR; the misdescription did not sustain the petition alone. |
| Did the findings/overriding considerations adequately support the project? | Findings may have inadequately address environmental impacts or alternatives. | Court deferential review; overriding considerations balanced benefits against impacts. | The overriding considerations were supported, but the failure to discuss feasible alternatives invalidated CEQA compliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. Supreme Court 2007) (principles for analytical adequacy under CEQA; discuss uncertainties, alternatives, and feasibility)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. Supreme Court 1988) (requires meaningful discussion of alternatives and accurate descriptions in EIRs)
- Goleta Valley Citizens Assn. v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553 (Cal. Supreme Court 1990) (establishes standard for determining the scope and depth of EIR analysis (CEQA))
- Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mt. Shasta, 198 Cal.App.3d 433 (Cal. App. Dist. 3 1988) (discusses mitigation for wetlands and public agency CEQA duties)
- Sierra Club v. County of Napa, 121 Cal.App.4th 1490 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2004) (ties depth of CEQA analysis to feasibility and informed decision making)
- Bay-Delta Authority (In re Bay-Delta etc.), 43 Cal.4th 1143 (Cal. Supreme Court 2008) (articulates objective and alternatives analysis requirements under CEQA)