Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee
210 Cal. App. 4th 260
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- CEQA challenge to City of Santee’s EIR for Fanita Ranch; trial court found insufficient fire safety mitigation evidence and issued a limited writ delaying project approvals.
- EIR relied on fire plan but City did not adopt open-space fuel management, undermining fire-safety conclusions.
- EIR deferred mitigation for Quino impacts and lacked explicit habitat management standards.
- EIR analysis of water supply was flawed due to discrepancies between EIR estimates and district assessment, plus failure to address uncertainties and lake-water sourcing.
- City’s use of a limited writ addressed CEQA violations; subsequent proceedings ordered decertification and set-aside of approvals.
- Court remanded for determination of appellate fees and for trial court to determine appropriate remedies and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deferred mitigation of Quino impacts improper | Quino management mitigation deferred | Mitigation can be deferred with standards later | CEQA violated; deferred mitigation improper |
| Water supply impacts inadequately analyzed | Discrepancy and uncertainty render analysis insufficient | Assessment supports sufficient water supply | CEQA violation; insufficient water-supply analysis |
| Feasibility of offsite mitigation acquisition | Mitigation property acquisition lacking feasibility | Evidence shows feasible acquisition | Not meritorious; feasible generally supported |
| Propriety of limited writ remedy | Limited writ improperly narrows CEQA relief | Limited writ authorized to tailor remedy | Trial court authorized; not per se improper; issues may interrelate with other CEQA defects |
| Prevailing party and attorney fees awards | Plaintiffs prevailed on CEQA issues; fees appropriate | Challenge to prevailing-party status and reasonableness | Appellate fees and costs awarded; remanded for precise amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2007) (substantial evidence and CEQA review standards; harm and deference to agency findings)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988) (deference to factual conclusions; de nuovo review of procedures)
- San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. Metropolitan Water Dist., 89 Cal.App.4th 1097 (Cal. App. 2001) (CEQA remedies and equitable relief; limited writ authority)
- California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova, 172 Cal.App.4th 603 (Cal. App. 2009) (feasibility and adequacy of mitigation measures under CEQA)
- San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced, 149 Cal.App.4th 645 (Cal. App. 2007) (analyzing deferral of mitigation and completeness of EIRs)