Vineyard Area Citizens v. Rancho Cordova

Decision Date01 February 2007
Docket NumberNo. S132972.,S132972.
Citation40 Cal.4th 412,150 P.3d 709,53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesVINEYARD AREA CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE GROWTH, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, Defendant and Respondent; Sunrise Douglas Property Owners Assn. et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, Clifford W. Schulz, Sacramento; Best Best & Krieger and Roderick E. Walston, Walnut Creek, for Association of California Water Agencies and State Water Contractors as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent and Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

WERDEGAR, J.

The County of Sacramento (County) approved a community plan for a large, mixed-use development project proposed by real parties in interest in this mandate action (real parties), as well as a specific plan for the first portion of that development. A group of objectors to the development (plaintiffs) brought a petition for writ of mandate to overturn, on a variety of grounds, the County's approval. The superior court denied the petition, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

We granted review to consider plaintiffs' claims, arising under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), that (1) the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the community and specific plans failed to adequately identify and evaluate future water sources for the development, and (2) potential impacts on migratory salmon in the Cosumnes River, disclosed in the Final EIR, should instead have been incorporated in a revised Draft EIR and recirculated for public comment.

We conclude that while the EIR adequately informed decision makers and the public of the County's plan for near-term provision of water to the development, it failed to do so as to the long-term provision and hence failed to disclose the impacts of providing the necessary supplies in the long term. While the EIR identifies the intended water sources in general terms, it does not clearly and coherently explain, using material properly stated or incorporated in the EIR, how the long-term demand is likely to be met with those sources, the environmental impacts of exploiting those sources, and how those impacts are to be mitigated. On the second issue, we agree with plaintiffs that the Draft EIR must be revised and recirculated for public comment on the newly disclosed potential impact on Cosumnes River fish migration.

Factual and Procedural Background

The facts are drawn from the record before the County's Board of Supervisors (Board) when that body took the challenged actions. (See Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 568-574, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139, 888 P.2d 1268.)

Real parties, a land development group led by AKT Development Corporation, propose to develop more than 6,000 rural acres in the eastern part of the County (now within the jurisdiction of the recently incorporated City of Rancho Cordova (Rancho Cordova), which has assumed the County's place in this litigation) into a "master planned community" known as Sunrise Douglas (after Sunrise Boulevard and Douglas Road, two major roads forming part of its borders). Fully built, the project would include more than 22,000 residential units, housing as many as 60,000 people, together with schools and parks, as well as office and commercial uses occupying about 480 acres of land.

County planning staff prepared two plans for initial regulatory approval: the Sunrise Douglas Community Plan (Community Plan), which sets out the "policy framework and conceptual development plan" for the entire project, and the Sun-Ridge Specific Plan (Specific Plan), which details the proposed development of a substantial portion of the project—2,600 acres of land to contain 9,886 residential units, as well as community commercial areas, shopping centers, neighborhood schools and parks. County staff also prepared a single EIR assessing the likely environmental consequences of implementing both plans, to be used by the Board in deciding whether to approve the plans.

On July 17, 2002, the Board passed resolutions and ordinances that amended the County general plan and zoning ordinances to approve the project. The Board also certified the Final EIR (FEIR) and made findings as to significant unmitigated environmental effects and overriding benefits. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081;) Guidelines for the Implementation of Cal. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines) (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15090, 15091.)

The EIR for the Community Plan and Specific Plan addressed myriad potential environmental impacts associated with the development, as well as mitigation measures and alternatives to the development. Many of these formed the basis for critical public comment on the Draft EIR1 and disputes at earlier stages of the litigation, but this court's review of the EIR's adequacy is focused solely on issues of water supply and the impact of groundwater withdrawals on Cosumnes River fish migration. Our factual summary therefore also addresses only these two points.

Water Supply: Sources, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

According to the FEIR, the average water demand in the Specific Plan area, on full build out, is estimated to be 8,539 acre-feet annually (afa); demand in the remainder of the Community Plan area is estimated at 13,564 afa, giving a total project demand, when fully built and occupied, of about 22,103 afa. The plan for supplying this water relies on both groundwater and surface water supplies. Initially, groundwater in an amount eventually reaching about 5,527 afa would be provided from a newly developed source, the North Vineyard Well Field (Well Field), to be built southwest of the development. The Well Field is thought to have a safe yield of about 10,000 afa, but that full amount would not necessarily be available to Sunrise Douglas. The project's additional needs, beyond those supplied from the Well Field, would later be met with surface water diverted from the American River. Both the ground and surface water supplies would be delivered by the Sacramento County Water Agency (the Water Agency).

The Water Agency, according to the FEIR, will provide the surface water supplies as part of its system for a larger area of the County known as Zone 40, which, as expanded in 1999, includes the Sunrise Douglas project area. This water will be employed in "conjunctive use" with the Well Field groundwater, employing more surface water in wet years (allowing the groundwater resources to be recharged) and more groundwater in dry years...

To continue reading

Request your trial
474 cases
  • San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City of S.F.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 22, 2018
    ...P.3d 709.) This review differs according to the type of error claimed. ( Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821, 150 P.3d 709.) "Whether an ‘agency has employed the correct procedures,’ is reviewed ‘de nov......
  • League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 14, 2022
    ...decision; in that sense appellate judicial review under CEQA is de novo.’ ( Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 427, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821, 150 P.3d 709.) The reviewing court independently determines whether the record ‘demonstra......
  • Schellinger Brothers v. City of Sebastopol, A122972.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 2, 2009
    ...that is not yet over. The parties agree that our review is de novo. (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 427 [53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821, 150 P.3d 709] (Vineyard).) Fortunately, our resolution of the issues presented by this appeal wi......
  • Aqualliance v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • February 15, 2018
    ...extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion." Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova , 40 Cal. 4th 412, 426, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821, 150 P.3d 709 (2007) (citation and quotation marks omitted). "Such an abuse is established if the age......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Addressing the Problem: The Judicial Branches
    • United States
    • Environmental justice: legal theory and practice. 4th edition
    • February 20, 2018
    ...before the decision to go forward is made.” ( Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 449-450 ( Vineyard Area Citizens ).) In reviewing compliance with CEQA, we review the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision. ( Vineya......
  • CALIFORNIA'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FISH.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 51 No. 4, September 2021
    • September 22, 2021
    ...in spite of its reliance on the constitutional amendment); Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, 150 P.3d 709, 732 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (noting the petitioners argument that dewatering a river interferes with salmon migration); see 51 Cal. Att'y Gen.......
  • How Local Governments Can Resolve Koontz's Prohibitions on Ad Hoc Land Use Restrictions
    • United States
    • At the Cutting Edge: Land Use Law from The Urban Lawyer (ABA)
    • Invalid date
    ...Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (2011).[106] . See, e.g., Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Ran-cho Cordova, 40 Cal. 4th 412, 435 (2007) (stating that the court will not set aside the agency's EIR approval under CEQA even if a different conclusion would be "equally......
  • The Top Ten Real Property Cases of 2018
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Real Property Journal (CLA) No. 37-1, March 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...2018 WL 6729853, *8 (2018) ; Guidelines, § 15126.2.121. Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal. 4th 412, 443 (2007).122. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. 47 Cal. 3d at 404.123. See Guidelines, § 15162(a)(3).124. Sierra Club, 2018 WL 6729853, *1......
2 provisions
  • California Register, 2018, Number 04. January 26, 2018
    • United States
    • California Register
    • Invalid date
    ...the holding of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412. Specifically, the changes would clarify that agencies must evaluate a proposed project’s water supply and the environmental impacts of sup......
  • Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15155 Water Supply Analysis; City Or County Consultation With Water Agencies
    • United States
    • California Code Of Regulations 2023 Edition Title 14. Natural Resources Division 6. Resources Agency Article 3. Special Provisions
    • January 1, 2023
    ...Code; and Sections 10910- 10915, Water Code; and Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412....

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT