Residents Against Specific Plan 380 v. County of Riverside
9 Cal. App. 5th 941
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Keller Crossing Specific Plan (Specific Plan 380) proposed a 201-acre master-planned community in Riverside County with mixed residential, commercial, and 61.1 acres of conserved open space; total buildout: 320 dwelling units and 650,000 sq ft commercial.
- County prepared a Draft EIR (public review Aug–Sep 2011) and Final EIR (Jan 2012) concluding all impacts except air quality and noise could be mitigated below significance; air quality and noise remained significant and unmitigable.
- Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors requested and the Trust made several post‑EIR reallocations of uses among planning areas (relocalized density to center, changed some office areas to residential, combined planning areas), without changing total units, commercial square footage, or project footprint.
- Board gave tentative approval Dec 18, 2012 (with direction to incorporate modifications) and gave final approval Nov 5, 2013; County certified the Final EIR and adopted findings, mitigation monitoring and reporting plan (MMRP), and statement of overriding considerations (SOC).
- County filed a Notice of Determination the same day, but the notice described an earlier project configuration and contained several factual errors; appellant filed a CEQA writ petition within 13 days (within the 30‑day limitations period).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether County approved project after it was substantially modified | County approved project on Dec 18, 2012 and later substantial modifications rendered approval invalid | Dec 18 action was tentative; final approval occurred Nov 5, 2013 after modifications were codified | Held: Approval valid — Dec 18 was tentative; final action on Nov 5, 2013 complied with CEQA timing requirements |
| Whether County failed to adopt findings, SOC, and MMRP concurrently with approval | County approved without adopting required findings/SOC/MMRP | Final adoption occurred Nov 5, 2013 concurrent with project approval | Held: No violation — required documents were adopted with final approval |
| Whether County had to recirculate the EIR after modifying the plan | Modifications (reallocating uses, combining PAs) introduced new or substantially increased impacts requiring recirculation | Modifications did not change footprint, total units, or commercial sq ft; experts concluded no new/substantially increased impacts; changes clarified/reduced impacts | Held: No recirculation required — substantial evidence supports County’s determination that changes did not create significant new information |
| Adequacy of Final EIR and responses to mitigation suggestions (air quality, noise); and adequacy of Notice of Determination | EIR failed to analyze non‑CCRC uses in mixed‑use area and refused feasible mitigation (e.g., stricter equipment/emissions controls, prescriptive energy/noise measures); Notice of Determination misdescribed approved project and so is defective | EIR analyzed likely/anticipated CCRC use and required County review if alternative uses proposed; responses to comments gave reasoned explanations (availability, performance standards); Notice substantially complied and appellant sued within 30 days so no prejudice | Held: EIR and responses adequate under CEQA; County reasonably declined some suggested mitigations; Notice, though containing errors, substantially complied and did not prejudice appellant |
Key Cases Cited
- Tomlinson v. County of Alameda, 54 Cal.4th 281 (Cal. 2012) (CEQA’s purposes and EIR as informational core)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 6 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 1993) (recirculation required when new information deprives public of meaningful opportunity to comment)
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2007) (standards for significant new information and recirculation)
- Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors, 48 Cal.4th 32 (Cal. 2010) (notice of determination contents and substantial compliance)
- Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, 87 Cal.App.4th 99 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (recirculation required where mitigation relied on offsite measure disclosed late and unanalyzed)