231 Cal. App. 4th 35
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Perris Dam is a 1972 multipurpose facility at Lake Perris; 2005 foundation study revealed seismic deficiencies; project includes dam remediation, outlet tower replacement, and a proposed emergency outlet extension; the emergency outlet extension was separated into a separate CEQA process in final review; the final EIR analyzes only dam remediation and outlet tower replacement; Paulek has standing to challenge CEQA approval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Paulek has standing to challenge CEQA approval | Paulek satisfied 21177(b) by objecting | Paulek lacked standing under 21177(b) | Paulek has standing |
| Whether removal of emergency outlet extension leaves unmitigated environmental impacts | Removal creates unmitigated downstream flooding risk | Remediation reduces baseline flooding; no new impacts | No unmitigated environmental impact remains |
| Whether separating the emergency outlet extension constitutes improper segmentation | Emergency outlet extension is integral to the Perris Dam Remediation Project | Segmentation is permissible; separate CEQA review allowed | Separation does not constitute improper segmentation |
| Whether Department’s responses to written comments were adequate | Responses were insufficient or non-specific | Responses were sufficient by reference to the EIR and mitigation plans | Responses adequate under CEQA standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino, 185 Cal.App.4th 866 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (standing prerequisites under CEQA)
- Sierra Club v. City of Orange, 163 Cal.App.4th 523 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (objections must be specific enough for agency response)
- Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley, 124 Cal.App.4th 430 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (standing and exhaustion implications in CEQA)
- Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com., 13 Cal.3d 263 (Cal. 1975) (definition of ‘project’ and piecemeal review concerns)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988) (when actions are part of a single project for CEQA purposes)
- Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond, 184 Cal.App.4th 70 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (segmentation and responses to comments in CEQA)
- Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach, 211 Cal.App.4th 1209 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (PIECemealing and multi-project review under CEQA)