Washoe Meadows etc. v. Dept. of Parks and Rec., A145576

Background

The State acquired 777 acres including Washoe Meadows State Park and Lake Valley State Recreation Area; a preexisting golf course lay in the Recreation Area while the State Park was to preserve wet meadow habitat.
Erosion and river channel alteration by the golf course contributed sediment to Lake Tahoe; agencies initiated CEQA/NEPA review for the “Upper Truckee River Restoration and Golf Course Reconfiguration Project.”
A scoping notice identified four alternatives; the DEIR (2010) analyzed five alternatives (including a no-project and decommissioning option) but did not designate a preferred alternative, stating the preferred alternative would be chosen after public comment.
The FEIR (2011) identified a refined version of Alternative 2 (river restoration with a reconfigured 18-hole golf course) as the preferred alternative; the Department certified the FEIR and approved that alternative; the Commission adopted related land reclassifications.
Washoe Meadows Community petitioned for writ of mandate challenging CEQA violations (notably that the DEIR lacked an accurate, stable, finite project description); the trial court granted the writ on several grounds, and the Department and Commission appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DEIR provided an accurate, stable, finite project description	DEIR failed to identify a single, stable proposed project and instead presented five very different alternatives, frustrating public participation	DEIR’s detailed analysis of Alternative 2 and later FEIR selection cures any defect; CEQA does not require a preferred alternative in the DEIR	Reversed? No — Court held DEIR inadequate: presenting a wide range of substantially different alternatives without a stated preferred project prevented meaningful public participation; vacatur of approvals affirmed
Whether FEIR needed recirculation for changes from DEIR (preferred alt. similar to Alt.2)	FEIR did not adequately explain why the approved preferred alternative was substantially the same as DEIR Alternative 2, requiring recirculation	Changes were minor and did not trigger recirculation rules	Mooted by primary ruling; court did not decide on the merits
Whether vegetation map differences in FEIR required recirculation	Differences in vegetation mapping materially altered analysis and required recirculation	Differences were not significant enough to require recirculation	Mooted by primary ruling; court did not decide on the merits
Whether mitigation for cultural sites and fens was improperly deferred	Mitigation lacked performance standards/commitments, unlawfully deferring mitigation formulation	Additional details could be addressed in subsequent design and updates; not ripe	Court declined to resolve; left open for potential revised EIR

Key Cases Cited

County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185 (1977) (EIR must present an accurate, stable, finite project description; shifting descriptions undermine public participation)
Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco, 227 Cal.App.4th 1036 (2014) (an EIR may leave some design details for later so long as the project’s basic characteristics remain accurate, stable and finite)
Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (2007) (standard of review in CEQA mandamus proceedings; review for prejudicial abuse of discretion)
San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced, 149 Cal.App.4th 645 (2007) (unstable project descriptions in DEIR can frustrate public participation)
Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond, 184 Cal.App.4th 70 (2010) (when DEIR fails to apprise public of project scope, issue is legal and reviewed de novo)
Western Placer Citizens for an Agricultural & Rural Environment v. County of Placer, 144 Cal.App.4th 890 (2006) (project description is an indispensable component of a valid EIR)