The Highway 68 Coalition v. County of Monterey
H042891
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 24, 2017Background
- The Highway 68 Coalition challenged Monterey County's approval of Omni Resources' shopping center on Highway 68, challenging CEQA compliance.
- A May 2010 DEIR analyzed alternatives, including a reduced-density environmentally superior option with groundwater recharge to balance water use.
- The Board certified the FEIR and adopted findings in February 2012 approving a 99,970-square-foot reduced-density project.
- An interlocutory remand was issued July 29, 2014 to determine if the project has a long-term sustainable water supply as required by the 2010 General Plan.
- In 2015 the trial court denied the writ petition, affirming the Board’s findings and the project, and this appeal followed.
- The court affirmed the judgment, holding no CEQA or due-process violations required reversal and that general-plan consistency findings were adequately supported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could issue an interlocutory remand | Highway 68: remand improper; CEQA requires writ for violations | Voices of the Wetlands supports remand as proper mandamus tool | Remand upheld; proper mandamus power supports interlocutory remand |
| Due process on remand | Notice, ex parte contacts, and access to materials faulty | Remand proceedings provided adequate due process | Due process satisfied; no reversible error |
| CEQA water supply and analytics adequacy | FEIR water balance and recharge analysis were inadequate | Substantial evidence supports water balance, recharge, and long-term supply | CEQA analyses adequate with substantial evidentiary support |
| Segmentation of review (piecemeal analysis) | Gas station site should be reviewed with shopping center | Future gas station not pending project; not improperly segmented | No improper segmentation; future action not required to be analyzed here |
| Consistency with general plan | Project must be consistent with Policy PS-3.1/3.2 and require explicit findings | General plan consistency not a CEQA issue; board findings supported | General plan consistency upheld; Board's Finding supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Voices of the Wetlands v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 52 Cal.4th 499 (Cal. 2011) (mandamus remand authority and due process guidance in remand)
- Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale, 200 Cal.App.4th 1552 (Cal. App. 2011) (EIR consistency and general plan considerations)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988) (test for segmentation and future action CEQA review)
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2007) (principles for analytical adequacy of water supply in CEQA)
- Habitat & Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz, 213 Cal.App.4th 1277 (Cal. App. 2013) (guidance on CEQA water supply analysis under Vineyard)
- Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, 87 Cal.App.4th 99 (Cal. App. 2001) (fee-based mitigation and CEQA adequacy)
- San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco, 229 Cal.App.4th 498 (Cal. App. 2014) (mandamus review of general plan consistency)
- City of Fairfield v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.3d 768 (Cal. 1975) (officials’ obligation to discuss public concerns)
- A Local & Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles, 16 Cal.App.4th 630 (Cal. App. 1993) (standard for general plan consistency review)