Patane v. County of Santa Clara CA6
H048133
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background:
- Shamrock Seeds proposed replacing existing greenhouses with two new, internally lit greenhouses and ancillary facilities on unincorporated Santa Clara County property.
- County prepared a DEIR (with Neil Hinckley technical memorandum) finding horizontal illumination, uplight/sky glow, and glare would be less than significant; vertical illumination would exceed thresholds but could be mitigated.
- Mitigation MM AES-1.1 required solid barriers (≥80% opacity, at least as tall as greenhouse sidewalls) along the northwest side to reduce vertical illuminance below 0.1 fc at 10 feet from the adjacent property line.
- Neighbor Carmen Patane submitted comments and an expert report (Benya) arguing the EIR underestimated sky glow on cloudy nights and that blackout curtains (not barriers) were required; Benya asserted significant unmitigable lighting impacts.
- Board certified the EIR, adopted the project subject to MM AES-1.1, and relied on Hinckley’s analysis; trial court denied Patane’s writ petition challenging aesthetics and historic-resource analysis.
- On appeal Patane challenged (1) sufficiency of substantial evidence re: sky glow on cloudy nights, (2) adequacy of mitigation (barriers vs blackout curtains), and (3) adequacy of the County’s responses to Benya’s comments. Court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Patane's Argument | County's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EIR lacked substantial evidence that sky glow on cloudy nights would be less than significant | Hinckley used an inappropriate model/method; Benya shows sky glow would be significant using other methods | Hinckley measured illuminance at cloud level and found values below the 0.1 fc threshold; expert disagreement does not defeat substantial evidence | Court: Substantial evidence supports EIR; expert disagreement insufficient to invalidate EIR |
| Whether mitigation (MM AES-1.1 solid barriers) is inadequate and blackout curtains required | Barriers insufficient; blackout curtains are feasible and necessary to prevent sky glow and spillover | Blackout curtains infeasible in seed industry (contamination risk); Hinckley found only vertical illumination significant and barriers would reduce it below threshold | Court: EIR need only mitigate significant impacts; agency may favor its expert and selected feasible mitigation; MM AES-1.1 adequate |
| Whether FEIR/agency responses inadequately addressed Benya’s comments (including late submissions) | FEIR failed to properly respond; some material relied on was outside FEIR | FEIR included detailed responses to Benya; late (eve-of-hearing) comments were addressed by a supplemental Hinckley memo attached to the Board resolution | Court: Responses met CEQA requirements; agency may reasonably prefer one expert over another; late comments need not be answered but here were addressed via resolution exhibit |
Key Cases Cited
- Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th 502 (CEQA purpose and EIR accountability)
- Protecting Our Water & Environmental Resources v. County of Stanislaus, 10 Cal.5th 479 (standard of review in CEQA cases)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (courts should not weigh competing expert science; disagreement alone does not invalidate EIR)
- Chico Advocates for a Responsible Economy v. City of Chico, 40 Cal.App.5th 839 (methodology disagreements do not render EIR unsupported absent clear inadequacy)
- Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach, 2 Cal.5th 918 (requirement to summarize and respond to expert disagreements)
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (agency cannot rely on material not incorporated or described in FEIR)
- Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera, 107 Cal.App.4th 1383 (agency may favor some expert opinions over others)