Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors

• Decision Date: 31 December 1990
• Docket Number: No. S013629,S013629
• Citation: 801 P.2d 1161,276 Cal.Rptr. 410,52 Cal.3d 553
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 801 P.2d 1161 CITIZENS OF GOLETA VALLEY, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF the COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, et al., Defendants and Respondents; WALLOVER, INC., et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

Page 410

276 Cal.Rptr. 410

52 Cal.3d 553, 801 P.2d 1161

CITIZENS OF GOLETA VALLEY, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF the COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, et al., Defendants and Respondents WALLOVER, INC., et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

No. S013629.

Supreme Court of California In Bank.

Dec. 31, 1990.

[52 Cal.3d 558] [801 P.2d 1163] Philip A. Seymour, Santa Barbara, for plaintiffs and appellants.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Andrea Sheridan Ordin, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Theodora Berger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ken Alex, Deputy Atty. Gen., McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, Stephen L. Kostka, Daniel J. Curtin, Jr., Michael P. Durkee, Walnut Creek, Thomas C. Wood, Costa Mesa, Michael H. Zischke, Walnut Creek, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Mark I. Weinberger, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, H. Sinclair Kerr, Jr., Thomas Holden, San Francisco, Daniel P. Selmi, Los Angeles, Remy & Thomas, Michael H. Remy, Tina A. Thomas, James G. Moose, Robert H. Thompson, Sacramento, Hall & Phillips, Carlyle W. Hall, Jr., Los Angeles, John R. Phillips, Ann E. Carlson and Carl H. Moor, Los Angeles, as amici curiae on behalf of plaintiffs and appellants.

Marvin Levine, Acting County Counsel, David Nawi, County Counsel, Stephen Shane Stark and Jana Zimmer, Deputy County Counsel, for defendants and respondents.

Robert E. Goodwin, Santa Barbara, Russell R. Ruiz, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Colin Lennard and Lisa E. Kranitz, Los Angeles, as amici curiae on behalf of defendants and respondents.

Hollister & Brace, Richard C. Monk, Santa Barbara, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Joel S. Moskowitz, Los Angeles, Baker & McKenzie, Timothy A. Tosta, San Francisco, J. Frederick Clarke, Jr., Los Angeles, Maria C. Pracher, Jonathan S. Kitchen, Judy V. Davidoff, Douglas A. Potts, San Francisco, Matsinger & Blakeboro and Diane M. Matsinger, Santa Barbara, for real parties in interest and respondents.

Baker & Hostetler, McCuthchen Black, Philip K. Verleger, Donna R. Black, Peter Hsiao, Los Angeles, Ronald A. Zumbrun, Robin R. Rivett and M. Reed Hopper, Sacramento, as amici curiae on behalf of real parties in interest and respondents.

ARABIAN, Associate Justice.

We granted review in this matter to determine the sufficiency of an environmental impact report (EIR) on the proposed development of a shore-front resort hotel in the County of Santa Barbara (County). Citizens of Goleta Valley (CGV), a coalition of groups opposed to the project, challenged the EIR on the sole ground that it failed to consider a number of purportedly reasonable project alternatives.

For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the decision of the County Board of Supervisors (Board) to reject the alternatives as infeasible was supported by substantial and tenable evidence, and therefore cannot be classified as an abuse of discretion.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE

This case is the culmination of a decade long effort by real parties in interest Wallover, Inc., and Hyatt Corporation (collectively Hyatt) to build a resort hotel on 73 acres of undeveloped oceanfront land in the County. The property, known locally as Haskell's Beach, is part of the 1,143-acre Embarcadero Ranch, owned by real party Wallover. Located approximately eight miles from Santa Barbara on the western edge of the Goleta Valley, it is bounded on the north by United States Highway 101 (Highway 101) and the Southern Pacific Railway. To the east is an ARCO oil processing facility and the Sandpiper Golf Course. The Aminoil Dos Pueblos oil field and Ellwood pier (used by ARCO and Exxon for oil-related activities) form the western border. To the south lies the majestic Pacific Ocean.

Although currently vacant, the property has a long history of industrial use. From the 1920's to the 1950's, an oil processing plant and tank farm occupied the site. Thereafter the property was abandoned, although some unesthetic remnants of the former plant, such as old steel pilings, concrete abutments and pipe ends, are still visible. Notwithstanding its industrial past, the property currently contains a number of environmentally sensitive species and habitats. The beach historically was the site of a major Chumash Indian settlement; three recorded Native American cemeteries remain.

In 1980 the County submitted its local coastal program (LCP) to the state coastal commission for approval. The submittal designated Haskell's Beach as an "urban" area suitable for planned residential development. The commission, however, rejected the County's designation, concluding that the property was more appropriate for new resort/visitor-serving commercial development. The County refused to accept this designation, with the result that Haskell's Beach became a "white hole" in the County's LCP, i.e., an area without any particular land-use designation or development policy, subject to continuing County and coastal commission authority, and tension.

Armed with this knowledge, in 1983 Hyatt filed an application with the County for development of the property as a resort hotel and convention center. An EIR analyzing the project was certified as complete in September 1984 (a supplement and minor addendum to the EIR were certified the same month), and rezoning and LCP amendments designating the land for visitor-serving commercial development were approved. The coastal commission subsequently granted a coastal development permit subject to certain conditions.

The initial project proposal had called for a resort hotel of some 574 units (50 of which were to be located north of Highway 101), related restaurants, a conference center complex, tennis courts, swimming pools, water pipelines and a new access road. The EIR examined 4 development alternatives: no project; clustered high-density residential development; a smaller, 340-unit resort hotel and conference center south of the highway; and the alternative ultimately approved, a 400-unit hotel, with the potential for second-phase development of an additional 100 hotel rooms and 24 villas. There was no in-depth consideration of any alternative location for the project.

The EIR certification and land-use approvals were subsequently set aside in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 243 Cal.Rptr. 339 (Goleta I ), on the ground, inter alia, that "omission from the EIR of consideration of whether there was a feasible alternate site or sites was unreasonable and rendered the EIR inadequate, so as to make the [County's] actions with regard to it a prejudicial abuse of discretion." (Id. at p. 1180, 243 Cal.Rptr. 339.) The Court of Appeal remanded the matter to the superior court with directions to issue a mandatory writ.

During the pendency of the appeal in Goleta I, the County began preparation of a supplemental EIR to address some of the concerns raised in the first appeal. The draft EIR released in August 1987 contained a brief discussion of Santa Barbara During the subsequent public-comment period, CGV submitted an extensive critique of the discussion of alternatives in the EIR, demanding a more detailed analysis of Santa Barbara Shores and requesting that "any other feasible alternative sites should be specifically identified and discussed." CGV mentioned only one other specific alternative, an additional Wallover property north of Highway 101.

[801 P.2d 1165] Shores as an alternative site for the project. A staff report by the County's resource management department later explained that the EIR "focused on the Santa Barbara Shores property as a potential [52 Cal.3d 561] alternative site since it meets certain basic criteria: it is located on the South Coast, is a shore-front property, is planned for a visitor-serving use, and is comparable in size to the Hyatt property. No other property ... meets all of these specifications." ¹

In response to CGV's comments, the final EIR released in November 1987 contained an expanded discussion of the Santa Barbara Shores property as an alternative location for the project. While noting that the site appeared to be environmentally preferable to Haskell's Beach in certain respects, the EIR found that other environmental impacts, particularly with respect to traffic congestion, air quality and water resources, rendered the property less attractive. For these reasons, as well as the fact that the site was designated primarily for residential rather than visitor-serving commercial development, and that the property was not owned by Hyatt, the EIR rejected Santa Barbara Shores as a preferred alternative.

As to the feasibility of other sites, the final EIR stated in its response to comments: "No other locations have been discussed due to the lack of available oceanfront property suitable for the project." In support of this conclusion, the EIR referred to a December 1985 coastal commission staff report on Hyatt's application for a development permit which stated: "Other areas of the Santa Barbara coast are not able to accommodate the visitor serving development proposed here because of their congestion and the difficulty of developing large scale resorts there." As to the suggested Wallover alternative, the EIR explained: "Sites located inland from the ocean, for example, the remaining Wallover property referenced in this comments [sic ] have not been addressed since it is felt that oceanfront property is required to meet the basic objectives of this project." ²

In February 1988, after public hearings, the planning commission certified the final EIR and approved with conditions a final development plan for the 400-unit project. CGV appealed the planning commission decision to the Board. On the eve of the hearings before the Board, CGV submitted a letter indicating its dissatisfaction with the alternatives discussion in the EIR. CGV urged County to consider a number of specific additional sites: Carpinteria Bluffs; More Mesa; West Devereaux; Naples; Dos Pueblos Canyon; El Capitan Ranch;...