226 Cal. App. 4th 905
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Potrero Hills Landfill sought a large expansion (add 260 acres, raise capacity ~61.6M cu yd) in the Suisun Marsh secondary management area that would require rechanneling portions of an intermittent watercourse, Spring Branch.
- Solano County certified an EIR and issued permits; administrative and judicial challenges followed under the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act and county ordinance section 31-300 (which bars filling natural channels unless no "reasonable alternative" exists).
- The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (Commission) conducted de novo review, considered scientific reports (which found wetland vegetation in Spring Branch), and requested Waste Connections (real party) analyze reduced-size alternatives.
- Waste Connections submitted analyses (including a 2009 report to the Army Corps) showing several on-site reduced alternatives would greatly reduce capacity and increase per‑ton costs; a 127-acre alternative (avoiding Spring Branch) would cut capacity ~30%, revenue ~45%, but reduce costs only ~10%, rendering the project economically nonviable in their view.
- The Commission concluded the 127‑acre alternative was not a "reasonable alternative" (economic and other reasons) and approved a modified permit allowing rechanneling with mitigation; petitioners sought writ relief, and the trial court invalidated the Commission decision solely for lack of substantial evidence on the economic infeasibility of the 127‑acre alternative.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the administrative record contained sufficient economic and non‑economic evidence for a reasonable person to conclude the reduced alternative was not feasible under the county ordinance and CEQA feasibility standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports the Commission's finding that a 127‑acre reduced expansion avoiding Spring Branch was not a "reasonable alternative" under Solano County Ord. §31‑300 | Tam/SPRAWLDEF: Record lacks sufficient, comparative economic data to show the alternative is economically infeasible; Commission relied on self‑serving assertions | Commission/Waste Connections: Record contains comparative figures, engineering explanation of capacity differences, and a 2009 alternatives report giving context to costs, capacity, life and revenues; Commission may rely on that evidence | Held: Reversal — substantial evidence supports the Commission's multi‑faceted determination (economic and non‑economic reasons) that the 127‑acre alternative was not reasonable |
| Whether the Commission improperly relied on self‑serving financial information from the real party | Petitioners: Reliance on Waste Connections' confidential, self‑reported projections is unreliable and insufficient | Respondents: Commission may credit self‑reported studies; credibility/weight are for the agency to decide | Held: Rejected petitioners' challenge — agency could accept and rely on the financial evidence as substantial evidence |
| Whether the Commission's rejection of the alternative had to be based solely on economics | Petitioners: Economic infeasibility must be proved; otherwise alternative should be adopted | Respondents: Alternatives may be infeasible for non‑economic reasons (failure to meet project goals, regulatory requirements, need for mitigation), and Commission cited such reasons too | Held: Commission permissibly relied on both economic and non‑economic grounds; substantial evidence supports the combined rationale |
| Whether trial court properly substituted its judgment for the agency’s under substantial‑evidence review | Petitioners: Trial court found evidence insufficient and invalidated permit | Respondents: Appellate standard permits only limited weighing; reversal only if no reasonable person could reach Commission’s conclusion | Held: Court of Appeal reversed — reasonable person could reach Commission’s conclusion based on the whole record |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Comm'n v. Town of Emeryville, 69 Cal.2d 533 (discusses Commission creation and planning authority)
- Mein v. San Francisco Bay Conservation etc. Comm'n, 218 Cal.App.3d 727 (jurisdictional scope of Commission)
- Save San Francisco Bay Assn. v. San Francisco Bay Conservation etc. Comm'n, 10 Cal.App.4th 908 (standard of review and substantial‑evidence presumptions)
- Ross v. California Coastal Comm., 199 Cal.App.4th 900 (scope of appellate review of agency permits)
- Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553 (CEQA alternatives analysis must be judged by a rule of reason)
- Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside, 147 Cal.App.4th 587 (need for "some context" in economic comparisons of alternatives)
- Sierra Club v. County of Napa, 121 Cal.App.4th 1490 (agency may have substantial evidence to reject smaller alternatives even with limited economic detail)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino, 185 Cal.App.4th 866 (magnitude of cost difference determines feasibility)
- Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Education, 57 Cal.4th 197 (forfeiture of arguments not raised below)