202 Cal. App. 4th 603
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Flanders Mansion is a 1.252-acre parcel within the City-owned Mission Trails Nature Preserve (ESHA), surrounded on all sides by parkland and zoned P-2; the Mansion is a historic 1924 Tudor-style residence on the site.
- The City sought to sell the Mansion to divest the property, with objectives to preserve the mansion as a historic resource, avoid neighborhood impacts, protect park resources, and maintain park benefits.
- The City prepared a 2009 DEIR and later a FEIR after decertification of a prior EIR, identifying a significant and unavoidable impact—the permanent loss of parkland.
- Four project alternatives were analyzed: no project, residential lease, public lease, and sale with conservation easements; only the sale-plus alternative was deemed environmentally viable and capable of meeting primary objectives.
- CBRE provided an economic feasibility analysis stating restoration and sale could yield $4 million with about $1.157–$1.41 million restoration costs, and that lease options were economically infeasible due to long payback periods.
- The Foundation challenged the FEIR on Surplus Land Act analysis, the response to a comment about selling a smaller parcel, and the inclusion of the economic feasibility analysis; the trial court found deficiencies in Surplus Land Act analysis and parcel-size response, while upholding other CEQA findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did FEIR adequately address Surplus Land Act impacts? | Flanders contends FEIR failed to analyze uses by agencies under the Act and environmental consequences of unconstrained future uses. | City argues mitigation conditions and conservation easements bind future owners; analysis would be speculative and is not required in FEIR. | FEIR is adequate; Surplus Land Act impacts properly addressed. |
| Was the FEIR's failure to respond to the smaller-parcel comment reversible? | Comment suggested selling a smaller parcel to mitigate parkland loss; FEIR gave no detailed response. | Mitigation via conservation easement reduces parcel size; further response unnecessary. | FEIR failed to respond; certification invalid as to parcel-size comment. |
| Must economic feasibility analysis be included in the FEIR itself? | CBRE analysis is crucial for evaluating alternative feasibility and should be in the EIR. | Feasibility analysis can be in the administrative record and need not be embedded in the FEIR. | Economic feasibility analysis need not be in the FEIR; record evidence suffices. |
| Are the City's infeasibility findings for alternatives supported by substantial evidence? | Foundation argues CBRE lacks comprehensive metrics; infeasibility unsupported. | CBRE provides sufficient market and restoration analyses showing infeasibility for lease/no-project. | Substantial evidence supports infeasibility findings; CEQA standards met. |
| Was the overriding considerations analysis adequate? | Foundation contends the benefits list is flawed or insufficient to outweigh environmental effects. | City identified multiple independent benefits; benefits justify adverse environmental impacts. | Overriding considerations upheld; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (1988) (limits require thoughtful, non-prophetic discussion of reasonably foreseeable effects)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 6 Cal.4th 1112 (1993) (Laurel II; meaningful discussion of project alternatives in EIR)
- Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose, 141 Cal.App.4th 1336 (2006) (feasibility findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record)
- California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz, 177 Cal.App.4th 957 (2009) (feasibility analysis must be in the record for findings on alternatives)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino, 185 Cal.App.4th 866 (2010) (economic feasibility analysis context for CEQA alternatives)
- Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo, 157 Cal.App.4th 1437 (2007) (economic infeasibility and alternatives findings reviewed for substantial evidence)
- San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco, 102 Cal.App.4th 656 (2002) (EIR may rely on evidence outside the EIR for feasibility; not required to include all data in EIR)
- Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside, 147 Cal.App.4th 587 (2007) (feasibility and reasonableness in CEQA findings across alternatives)