Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera
199 Cal. App. 4th 48
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Second CEQA mandamus appeal challenging County of Madera's approval of Tesoro Viejo mixed-use project.
- Project covers up to 1,579 acres with as many as 5,190 dwelling units and ~3 million square feet of nonresidential use.
- Trial court held EIR inadequate for failing to disclose uncertainties about water supply; ordered decertification and vacatur of entitlements.
- Parties challenged EIR's discussions on archaeology, traffic, and cumulative impacts; disputes over administrative record versus extra-record evidence.
- Appellants cross-appealed on record-augmentation rulings and water-supply analysis; trial court later awarded fees; appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- Judgment remanded to address mitigation for archaeological resources, traditional cultural properties, traffic baseline, and cumulative impacts; costs to be recalculated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of administrative record | Plaintiffs contend trial court erred in excluding documents | County argues record was proper | Trial court's scope determinations are reviewable on appeal |
| Archaeological resources verification | MM4.5-2(a) improperly defers analysis | Verification is CEQA-consistent | Mitigation with post-certification verification invalid; requires removal or redesign of MM4.5-2(a) |
| Traffic baseline for EIR | Baseline must be existing conditions; 2025 projections improper | Two baselines or future baseline allowed | EIR lacking clear baseline; baseline error requires cure before reapproval |
| Cumulative impacts—buildout assumption | Must disclose 30% buildout basis for cumulative impacts | Buildout assumptions uncontroversial | Cumulative impacts discussion inadequate; needs explicit basis for buildout assumption |
| Water supply discussion under Vineyard/California Oak | EIR failed to discuss uncertainties from Holding Contract No. 7 and related documents | Water-supply assessment plus Sax letter adequate | Water supply discussion inadequate; need full disclosure and consideration of contradictory materials |
Key Cases Cited
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2007) (establishes reasoned analysis and full discussion standards for water supply under CEQA)
- California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita, 133 Cal.App.4th 1219 (Cal. App. 2005) (holding that inadequate water supply discussion undermines CEQA sufficiency)
- Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Sunnyvale City Council, 190 Cal.App.4th 1351 (Cal. App. 2010) (baselines for traffic CEQA analyses; limits on projecting future baselines)