216 Cal. App. 4th 614
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Marin Municipal Water District proposed a seawater desalination project in Marin County with a 5 MGD plant (potentially expandable) and associated infrastructure.
- An EIR was prepared and DEIR/FEIR issued; the Alliance challenged CEQA compliance, arguing inadequate analysis of environmental impacts.
- Trial court granted the Alliance’s writ; the District appealed, arguing EIR was adequate in multiple respects.
- Key contested areas included aesthetics (Ridgecrest A and San Quentin Ridge tanks), land use consistency with the Countywide Plan, seismology, hydrology/water quality, biology (entrainment), energy alternatives, and GHG impacts.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court, holding the EIR’s analyses and mitigations were adequate and that certain recirculation and exhaustion issues did not compel different outcomes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of the EIR’s aesthetic impact analysis for Ridgecrest A | Alliance argues the Ridgecrest A visual impact is inadequately analyzed | District contends EIR provides substantial evidence supporting less-than-significant impact | EIR analysis supported by substantial evidence; not deficient |
| Sufficiency of mitigation measure 4.1-3 for San Quentin Ridge | Mitigation is indefinite and non-committal | Mitigation commits to landscaping with measurable goals and monitoring | Mitigation measure sufficient to Mitigate, not invalid for indefiniteness |
| Exhaustion and land-use consistency with Countywide Plan | Alliance exhausted claims on plan consistency | No specific Countywide Plan consistency issues were raised in administrative process | Exhaustion not satisfied for Countywide Plan consistency; EIR’s land-use analysis still supported by substantial evidence |
| Entrianment analysis and year-long sampling requirement | Lack of year-long source water sampling renders analysis inadequate | Year-long sampling not required; other data provide substantial evidence | Substantial evidence supported EIR’s entrainment conclusions; year-long sampling not mandatory |
| Recirculation of Alternative 8 (Russian River pipeline) | Alternative 8 should trigger recirculation due to new information | Alternative 8 not significantly different or feasible; recirculation not required | No recirculation required; Alternative 8 not a clearly feasible, significant new alternative |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988) (CEQA interpretation; EIR as accountability document)
- Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside, 119 Cal.App.4th 477 (4th Dist. 2004) (Agency may deem some effects insignificant with brief explanation)
- CNPS v. Rancho Cordova, 172 Cal.App.4th 603 (3d Dist. 2009) (Feasibility/mitigation deferment allowed with performance criteria)
- Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency, 116 Cal.App.4th 1099 (3d Dist. 2004) (Brief discussion of significant/minor impacts permissible)
- Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 176 Cal.App.4th 889 (2d Dist. 2009) (EIR response detail depends on comment context; not always full analysis required)