76 Cal.App.5th 1092
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Lafferty proposed developing 44 homes on a 31.7-acre Garaventa Hills site in Livermore; the City circulated a reissued final EIR (RFEIR) and certified it in April 2019, approving the Project.
- The site contains sensitive habitat and is hydrologically connected to downstream Springtown Alkali Sink; mitigation measures in the RFEIR included offsite compensatory acreage (Bluebell site) and species-specific measures.
- Save the Hill Group, a neighborhood preservation group, challenged the RFEIR and Project under CEQA, arguing among other things that the RFEIR inadequately analyzed the no-project alternative (failing to consider available acquisition funding), and inadequately addressed biological and hydrological impacts.
- The superior court found the RFEIR’s no-project evaluation inadequate but held Save the Hill forfeited the claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; it denied relief.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: it held Save the Hill had preserved the no-project challenge, and that the RFEIR inadequately analyzed the no-project alternative because it omitted available, reasonably foreseeable funding sources (DVSA and ALSA funds) and related feasibility information; the court vacated certification and remanded with instructions to set aside approval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies for no-project challenge | Save the Hill fairly apprised the City of its concern and requested preservation/open-space acquisition; thus issue preserved | City argued comments were general and did not specifically challenge the RFEIR’s alternatives analysis | Court: preserved — public comments sufficiently apprised the agency; exhaustion exception applies because City had no intention to consider acquisition alternative |
| Adequacy of no-project alternative (failure to analyze funding/feasibility) | RFEIR omitted analysis of existing funding sources (DVSA, ALSA) and past City acquisitions (Farber) that could make conservation feasible | City argued zoning, lack of a known willing buyer, and procedural limits made acquisition infeasible and not reasonably foreseeable | Court: RFEIR inadequate — omission precluded informed decisionmaking; remand and new EIR required |
| Adequacy of VPFS (vernal pool fairy shrimp) mitigation | Save the Hill argued conditional measures were inadequate | City assumed VPFS presence and set performance standards and ratios; deferred details permissible | Court: mitigation adequate; substantial evidence supports measures and deferment subject to performance standards |
| Hydrological impacts to Springtown Alkali Sink | Save the Hill said RFEIR failed to analyze foreseeable downstream hydrological impacts | City relied on hydrological study showing no significant impacts to adjacent wetlands; Maralisa EIR not analogous | Court: RFEIR adequate on hydrology — expert report provided substantial evidence of no significant downstream impact |
| Adequacy of compensatory mitigation (Bluebell site) | Bluebell already protected by local plan and thus does not provide new compensatory resource | City: Bluebell would be placed under perpetual easement with endowment; can compel alternative if inadequate | Court: mitigation adequate — offsite preservation and easement satisfy CEQA’s compensatory framework |
| Standing to enforce DVSA/ALSA obligations | Save the Hill argued City ought to use settlement funds to acquire site under those agreements | City & Lafferty: Save the Hill is not a party to the settlements and lacks standing | Court: forfeited and, in any event, Save the Hill lacks standing to enforce DVSA/ALSA obligations |
Key Cases Cited
- Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th 502 (discusses CEQA purpose and EIR as the "heart of CEQA")
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (EIR informational-duty principles and deferment of mitigation details)
- Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources, 83 Cal.App.4th 892 (treatment of no-project alternative under CEQA)
- Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach, 2 Cal.5th 918 (agency abuse of discretion and prejudice from omitted information)
- Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal.App.3d 692 (EIR must disclose alternatives and analytic route)
- Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council, 229 Cal.App.3d 1011 (permitting deferral of mitigation details where performance standards set)
- California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova, 172 Cal.App.4th 603 (substantial evidence supports deferred mitigation when criteria set)
- King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern, 45 Cal.App.5th 814 (limitations on mitigation that merely preserve existing resources)
- Planning & Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency, 180 Cal.App.4th 210 (fairly apprise standard for exhaustion)