Silverado Modjeska Recreation & Park District v. County of Orange
128 Cal. Rptr. 3d 772
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- CEQA environmental review began in 2002 for Silverado Canyon Ranch; a 2003 EIR was certified after public comment; a writ in a prior action required a supplemental EIR (SEIR) addressing water quality, certified in 2007.
- Rural Canyons Conservation Fund and Ray Chandos challenged the 2003 EIR and, later, the 2007 SEIR in separate writ actions; the 2003 writ led to a court order requiring a baseline water data study and SEIR circulation, which was finalized.
- In 2005–2006, arroyo toad sightings near Silverado Creek prompted debate about recirculation; Bloom surveys failed to confirm toads, while Haase and Toure reported proximity sightings.
- The District and CCRC entered a 2003 agreement providing the District would not oppose development and would indemnify CCRC for litigation costs if breached; post-judgment, CCRC sought contractual attorney fees against the District.
- Rural Canyons appealed the trial court’s rulings on water quality and arroyo toad issues; the court ultimately held the 2007 SEIR did not require recirculation and that the 2003 writ had been properly discharged, but reversed an attorney-fees ruling against the District.
- The opinion discusses res judicata and privity to bar duplicative CEQA challenges and analyzes whether new information about the arroyo toad required SEIR recirculation under CEQA guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the 2007 petition barred by res judicata? | Rural Canyons contends the 2007 action raises new issues not determined in 2003. | CCRC and county argue the 2007 action concerns the SEIR’s compliance with the writ and new toad information, not duplicative claims. | Yes, res judicata bars the 2007 water-quality claims; the 2003 writ decision was final on the same primary CEQA right. |
| Did the county need to recirculate the SEIR after 2005–2006 arroyo toad sightings? | Rural Canyons contends Haase’s 2005 observations constituted new information requiring recirculation. | County relied on substantial evidence and public participation; new information did not meet recirculation triggers. | No recirculation required; new information did not create a substantial new environmental impact or feasible mitigations requiring recirculation under Laurel Heights II. |
| Was the SEIR certification proper despite new toad information? | Toad sightings could increase project impacts and require revised analysis. | Existing record and analyses sufficiently addressed water-quality and toad considerations; no new major changes warranted revision. | Yes; certification without recirculation was proper under CEQA standards. |
| Did the District breach the interparty agreement entitling CCRC to attorney fees? | CCRC sought contractual fees based on District’s alleged breach by filing the CEQA action. | No breach; fees were not properly incurred under the contract; cure provisions were not satisfied. | The district court erred in awarding attorney fees; breach adjudication occurred improperly in a postjudgment motion and notice/cure requirements were not met. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988) (guidelines weight and recirculation standards; public participation aims)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California (Laurel Heights II), 6 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 1993) (recirculation standards; new information must be significant for CEQA to require recirculation)
- River Valley Preservation Project v. Metropolitan Transit Development Bd., 37 Cal.App.4th 154 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1995) (change in berm height not a new EIR requirement; substantial environmental ramification test)
- Federation of Hillside & Canyon Assns. v. City of Los Angeles, 126 Cal.App.4th 1180 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (preclusion of relitigating CEQA issues under res judicata; primary right concept)
- Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (Cal. 1998) (contractual attorney-fee recoveries and fee-shifting rules)
- Chinn v. KMR Property Management, 166 Cal.App.4th 175 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (notice and timing for attorney-fee recoveries under contracts)