Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara
213 Cal. App. 4th 1059
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Troesh seeks a CUP to mine sand and gravel in the Cuyama River bed (Diamond Rock mine) for up to 30 years, potentially expanding mining to 84 acres.
- The Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (Report) was prepared for the County of Santa Barbara, which approved the project in 2008.
- The Report analyzes hydrological, water resource usage and water quality impacts, finding some potential effects but deeming them adverse yet mitigable or not significant.
- Mitigation Measure W-2 (MM W-2) requires semiannual river bottom surveys, data sharing with state and County agencies, and adjustment of pit design if adverse conditions emerge.
- Condition 64 restricts excavation to six feet above groundwater, with backfilling obligations if groundwater is encountered, addressing water quality concerns.
- Save Cuyama Valley (Save Cuyama) challenges the Report via a writ of mandate, arguing deficits in CEQA procedures and the adequacy of the impact analyses; the trial court denied relief, and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threshold of significance used for hydrology | Save Cuyama argues thresholds must be Appendix G or formally adopted | County may use a project-specific threshold and Appendix G is merely guidance | Thresholds may be project-specific and need not be formally adopted; no error. |
| Substantial evidence for minor hydrological impact | Combined loads from Diamond Rock and GPS create a significant deficit | Report explains impacts are unlikely and mitigable despite uncertainty | Substantial evidence supports finding of minor/mitigable hydrological impacts. |
| Sufficiency of MM W-2 as a mitigation measure | MM W-2 is vague and its effectiveness is unproven | MM W-2 links to established SMARA compliance and provides monitoring/remediation | MM W-2 is adequately defined and enforceable; mitigation is appropriate. |
| Water quality impact assessment not supported by evidence | Report errs in deeming water quality impact not significant | Condition 64 mitigates exposure and maintains safety; data supports mitigation | Although impact deemed not significant, mitigation remains effective; no prejudicial error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, 87 Cal.App.4th 99 (Cal. App. 2d 2001) (CEQA deference to agency findings; informational content matters)
- Gentry v. City of Murrieta, 36 Cal.App.4th 1359 (Cal. App. 4th 1995) (abuse of discretion standard in CEQA review)
- Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council, 229 Cal.App.3d 1011 (Cal. App. 3d 1991) (deferential review; meaningful mitigation analysis)
- Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection, 43 Cal.4th 936 (Cal. 2008) (CEQA procedures and independent review standard)
- Federation of Hillside & Canyon Assns. v. City of Los Angeles, 126 Cal.App.4th 1180 (Cal. App. 2004) (prejudice from inconsistent conclusions; mitigation feasibility)
- San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced, 149 Cal.App.4th 645 (Cal. App. 2007) (inconsistency in report may be prejudicial depending on context)
- Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal.App.3d 692 (Cal. App. 1990) (cumulative impact analysis considerations)
- Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City of Los Angeles, 58 Cal.App.4th 1019 (Cal. App. 1997) (cumulative impact assessment standards)