Washoe Meadows Cmty. v. Dep't of Parks & Recreation
17 Cal. App. 5th 277
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- California acquired 777 acres including a 2.2-mile stretch of the Upper Truckee River; land was divided into Washoe Meadows State Park (protect wet meadow) and Lake Valley State Recreation Area (existing golf course).
- Erosion and river channel alteration by the golf course contributed significant sediment to Lake Tahoe; restoration/golf reconfiguration was proposed.
- The Department of Parks and Recreation circulated a DEIR analyzing five very different alternatives (including no project, 18-hole reconfiguration, 9-hole, stabilization keeping existing 18-hole, and decommissioning the golf course) and did not identify a preferred alternative.
- FEIR later identified a "refined" Alternative 2 (restoration with reconfigured 18-hole course) as the preferred alternative and the Department certified the FEIR and approved the project; the Commission adopted matching resolutions.
- Washoe Meadows Community petitioned for writ of mandate alleging multiple CEQA defects; trial court granted relief primarily because the DEIR failed to present an accurate, stable, finite project description.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DEIR provided an "accurate, stable and finite" project description | DEIR failed: it presented five substantially different alternatives and no preferred project, preventing meaningful public comment | DEIR adequately analyzed impacts (esp. Alternative 2) and detail could be refined; DEIR served as legitimate scoping/range of alternatives | Held for plaintiff: DEIR inadequate because presenting a broad, differing set of projects without a stable proposed project stifled informed public participation |
| Whether failure to identify preferred alternative was permissible under CEQA | Lack of preferred alternative prejudiced public process | Agency analogized to NEPA practice where preferred alternative need not be named in draft EIS | Held for plaintiff: CEQA requires an accurate, stable project description; NEPA distinctions do not excuse CEQA noncompliance here |
| Whether FEIR required recirculation because preferred alternative differed from DEIR Alternative 2 | DEIR/FEIR differences required recirculation | Agency argued FEIR refinements were minor and did not change significance conclusions | Not addressed on merits (moot) because DEIR defect required vacatur of approvals |
| Whether mitigation deferral for cultural sites and wetlands invalidated FEIR | Mitigation commitments were too vague and deferred, precluding adequate review | Agency argued refinements could be addressed later and additional information might alter measures | Not resolved (moot); trial court had found deferral problematic but appellate court declined to address because main DEIR defect was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) (requires an "accurate, stable and finite" project description for effective public participation)
- Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco, 227 Cal.App.4th 1036 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (EIR may leave some design details unresolved if basic project characteristics remain stable)
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2007) (standard of review for CEQA mandamus: prejudicial abuse of discretion)
- Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond, 184 Cal.App.4th 70 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (no deference when DEIR fails to apprise public of project scope)
- San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced, 149 Cal.App.4th 645 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (unstable project description in DEIR precludes meaningful public participation)
- Western Placer Citizens for an Agricultural & Rural Environment v. County of Placer, 144 Cal.App.4th 890 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (project description is indispensable component of a valid EIR)
- Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Commission, 16 Cal.4th 105 (Cal. 1997) (California courts will not follow NEPA precedent that conflicts with CEQA)