217 Cal. App. 4th 503
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Solargen proposed the 399–420 MW Panoche Valley Solar Farm on ~4,885 acres in San Benito County, much of it under Williamson Act agricultural‑rangeland contracts; site hosts species of special concern (blunt‑nosed leopard lizard, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox) and significant bird habitat.
- County prepared a DEIR/FEIR analyzing environmental impacts, several mitigation measures (species surveys, buffers, conservation easements, habitat ratios) and alternatives, including a smaller Alternative A and the distant Westlands CREZ site.
- County denied a Williamson Act compatibility finding, then approved cancellations of contracts (affecting ~6,953 acres total, 4,563 within project) after finding other public concerns (renewable energy, jobs) substantially outweighed Williamson Act objectives and no proximate noncontracted alternative existed.
- County certified the FEIR, adopted CEQA findings and a statement of overriding considerations, and approved the project and entitlements.
- Save Panoche Valley (and others) petitioned for writ of mandate challenging the Williamson Act cancellations and the FEIR/approval under CEQA; trial court denied relief.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed: it found substantial evidence supported the Williamson Act cancellation and the County’s CEQA findings and mitigation approach, and rejected the Westlands CREZ as a feasible/proximate alternative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Were Williamson Act cancellations valid? | County lacked substantial evidence that "other public concerns" substantially outweighed Williamson Act objectives; proximate noncontracted alternative (Westlands CREZ) existed. | Substantial evidence showed public interests (renewable energy goals, local jobs, limited acreage affected, restoration obligations) outweighed Act objectives; no proximate, available suitable alternative. | Affirmed: substantial evidence supported cancellations and finding no proximate noncontracted alternative. |
| 2. Was the Westlands CREZ a feasible CEQA alternative? | Westlands CREZ was environmentally superior and feasible; county improperly dismissed it. | Westlands CREZ was distant (~60 miles), partly privately controlled, in other counties (jurisdictional obstacles), likely time‑consuming and legally/jurisdictionally infeasible. | Affirmed: Board reasonably found Westlands CREZ infeasible; dismissal supported by substantial evidence. |
| 3. Did the FEIR inadequately analyze/mitigate biological impacts (esp. blunt‑nosed leopard lizard)? | EIR failed to complete required surveys, deferred critical mitigation, and ignored DFG concerns about "take." | FEIR required protocol surveys before construction, specified buffers and concrete mitigation measures; deferral limited to implementation details, not open‑ended. | Affirmed: mitigation and survey requirements were specific enough; deferral was permissible and supported by record. |
| 4. Were agricultural impact analyses/mitigation inadequate? | Proposed conservation easements, sheep‑grazing plan, and restoration promises do not sufficiently mitigate conversion of agricultural/rangeland. | Mitigation (easements, restoration, post‑project removal/rehabilitation, compensatory measures) fits CEQA definition of mitigation and is supported by evidence. | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports agricultural mitigation and CEQA findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (clarifies CEQA appellate standard: prejudicial abuse of discretion review)
- Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553 (agency may deem alternatives outside its jurisdiction infeasible)
- Sierra Club v. City of Hayward, 28 Cal.3d 840 (definition of “proximate” for Williamson Act analysis)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 47 Cal.3d 376 (CEQA requires adequacy, not technical perfection)
- California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz, 177 Cal.App.4th 957 (agencies must support infeasibility findings with substantial evidence)
- Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo, 157 Cal.App.4th 1437 (EIR must analyze alternatives adequately; cannot dismiss without analysis)
- Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto, 208 Cal.App.4th 899 (deferred mitigation cannot be loose or open‑ended)
- Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach, 211 Cal.App.4th 1209 (mitigation need not replace every lost acre; must reduce impacts to less‑than‑significant levels)