218 Cal. App. 4th 230
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Granite proposed a 25-year sand and gravel quarry on 65.3 acres near Ukiah; 45 acres are designated prime farmland. County prepared an EIR and approved a conditional use permit and reclamation plan. Masonite sued under CEQA to set aside approvals and the EIR.
- Draft EIR described the project, two significant unavoidable impacts (loss of prime farmland; future traffic issues), and alternatives (including pond-river connection and floodplain benching as Alternative 3).
- Between draft circulation and final EIR: County adopted the pond-river connection (replacing a weir/fuse plug) and removed floodplain benching from the preferred alternative; the final EIR added a new discussion and mitigation for the Foothill yellow-legged frog.
- County concluded offsite agricultural conservation easements (ACEs) and in-lieu fees were infeasible mitigations for the loss of prime farmland and that the project would not contribute to significant cumulative farmland loss, relying in part on the general plan EIR.
- Roadway impacts: heavy truck traffic would use Kunzler Ranch Road (a privately maintained road); the EIR adopted a fair-share payment/repair approach but deferred specific improvement standards and timing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EIR must be recirculated because final EIR disclosed a new significant impact on the Foothill yellow-legged frog | Masonite: new, significant frog impact and mitigation appeared only in final EIR; public must have opportunity to comment | County: draft discussed frog (low potential); final mitigations reduce impact to insignificance so recirculation unnecessary | Recirculation required for the frog discussion and mitigation measures (new significant impact disclosed in final EIR) |
| Whether project changes (pond-river connection; removal of floodplain benching) required EIR recirculation | Masonite: approved project differed materially from draft and increased impacts; public review deprived | County: both features were discussed in draft; pond-river connection was discussed as alternative and considered environmentally superior; removal of benching reduced impacts | No recirculation required for these feature changes; project description and prior comments provided adequate notice |
| Whether ACEs or in-lieu fees were legally feasible to mitigate loss of prime farmland | Masonite: ACEs or in-lieu fees can mitigate direct loss; County should analyze feasibility and economics | County: ACEs address indirect/cumulative effects only; not legally feasible here; county lacks program for in-lieu fees | County erred as a matter of law: ACEs and in-lieu fees may be legally feasible; EIR must analyze feasibility and economic viability and respond to DOC comments |
| Whether EIR’s cumulative impacts analysis for farmland was adequate | Masonite: EIR improperly relied on general plan EIR without tiering/incorporation and failed to analyze cumulative/project-specific conversion risk | County: relied on general plan EIR conclusion that cumulative conversion is less than significant | EIR deficient: must expressly incorporate/tier or summarize prior EIR material and meaningfully analyze cumulative farmland impacts beyond a conclusory citation |
| Whether roadway mitigation for truck traffic on private Kunzler Ranch Road was adequate/enforceable | Masonite: mitigation defers key specifics (timing, standards, payments); unenforceable and inadequate | County: measures are enforceable conditions; payments tied to Civil Code §845 and parties’ agreement | Mitigation is impermissibly deferred/lacks standards and timing; EIR must provide performance criteria or a committed plan to support finding of insignificance |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 6 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 1993) (recirculation required when new information in final EIR deprives public meaningful opportunity to comment)
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2007) (standard for CEQA review; scope of recirculation and incorporation by reference)
- Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council, 222 Cal.App.3d 30 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (discovery of endangered species after draft circulation required EIR revision/recirculation)
- Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi, 205 Cal.App.4th 296 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (offsite ACEs required to mitigate conversion of prime farmland)
- Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553 (Cal. 1990) (EIR must consider a reasonable range of alternatives; rule of reason on scope)