Rominger v. County of Colusa
229 Cal. App. 4th 690
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Romingers challenged Colusa County's CEQA review of Adams Group subdivision: four parcels totaling ~159 acres were to be divided into 16 parcels for future expansion.
- County approved a revised initial study and mitigated negative declaration (MND); petition sought writ of mandate alleging CEQA violations, including failure to prepare an EIR and inadequate mitigation.
- Trial court ruled the subdivision was not a CEQA project and thus no further CEQA review was required beyond preliminary review.
- California Court of Appeal independently found the Adams subdivision qualifies as a CEQA project and proceeded to review other CEQA challenges, partially sustaining and remanding.
- Court held the common sense exemption does not apply; substantial evidence supports only the traffic impact requiring an EIR, so the case is remanded for traffic-related environmental review.
- On remand, the mandate directs preparation of an EIR addressing potentially significant traffic impacts at the County Line Road/Old Highway 99 intersection; other issues were resolved against Romingers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Adams subdivision a CEQA project? | Romingers contend the subdivision is a CEQA project and review is mandatory. | County argued the subdivision is not a CEQA project or is exempt (common sense), and review was voluntary. | Subdivision qualifies as a CEQA project; mandatory review applies. |
| Does the common sense exemption apply to the subdivision? | Romingers claim common sense exemption should preclude CEQA review. | County contends exemption applies because no significant environmental effects would result. | Common sense exemption does not apply. |
| Was there prejudicial abuse of CEQA public-review timing for the MND? | County violated CEQA by providing less than 30 days for public review (27 days due to Labor Day weekend). | Notices and public postings satisfied CEQA timing; any discrepancy was nonprejudicial. | County's 30-day requirement was not met; however prejudice was not shown; no relief on this basis. |
| Did substantial evidence require an EIR due to traffic impacts? | Traffic expert evidence shows significant, unanalyzed traffic impacts at a key intersection; an EIR is required. | Traffic impacts were inadequately argued; existing analysis suffices for a MND. | Yes, substantial evidence supports a fair argument for significant traffic impacts; remand for EIR is required addressing traffic at the intersection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Comm., 41 Cal.4th 372 (Cal. Supreme Court 2007) (defines project vs. non-project and non-exemption framework)
- Latinos Unidos de Napa v. City of Napa, 196 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Cal. App. Dist. 1 2011) (time-computation rules for CEQA notices; CPL 12 distinction)
- Gentry v. City of Murrieta, 36 Cal.App.4th 1359 (Cal. App. 1995) (fair argument standard governs negative declarations; evidence import)
- Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency, 116 Cal.App.4th 1099 (Cal. App. 2004) (thresholds of significance; appendix G applicability)
- Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara, 213 Cal.App.4th 1059 (Cal. App. 2013) (agency thresholds of significance can be customized; not rigid appendix G)
- Baldwin v. City of Los Angeles, 70 Cal.App.4th 819 (Cal. App. 1999) (independent review under fair argument standard)
- Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, 57 Cal.4th 463 (Cal. 2013) (prejudice analysis for CEQA noncompliance; not automatic relief)
- Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Sunnyvale City Council, 190 Cal.App.4th 1351 (Cal. App. 2010) (harmless error vs. prejudicial abuse; framework for analysis)
- California Oak Foundation v. Regents of University of California, 188 Cal.App.4th 1406 (Cal. App. 2010) (mandamus remedies for agency abuse of discretion under CEQA)