Listen to this post

In Yolo Land and Water Defense v. the County of Yolo (2024 105 Cal.App.5th 710, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the County’s EIR for a sand and gravel mine, known as the Teichert Shifler Mining and Reclamation Project. Downey Brand attorneys Andrew Skanchy and Sam Bacal-Graves successfully represented the County in this litigation, which resulted in a decision confirming that the County properly disclosed and analyzed the project’s environmental effects under CEQA.

In the unpublished portion of the opinion, the Court of Appeal denied the three primary arguments made by the petitioner.

First, the Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the County used an improper baseline to measure environmental effects. But the baseline selected by the County was the conditions existing on the project site at the time the Notice of Preparation was released. The Court affirmed the well-established CEQA rule that a project’s baseline is ordinarily the conditions that exist at the time the Notice of Preparation is released.

Second, the Court rejected Petitioner’s argument that the EIR inadequately disclosed potentially significant impacts of methylmercury in a post-mining, reclaimed lake. The Court found that the draft EIR, responses to comments in the Final EIR, and public presentations adequately discussed and addressed the potential impact, included methods to alleviate any impacts.

Third, the Court rejected Petitioner’s argument that mitigation reclaiming some post-mining land to prime farmland was unsupported. The EIR and Reclamation Plan explained that 113 acres of post-mining land would be reclaimed to prime farmland equivalent in quality and capacity to existing prime farmland. Petitioner argued that this was not feasible. But the Court correctly noted that the metric for meeting this standard (i.e., equivalent productivity over a period of time) was feasible and well-supported.

In the published portion of the decision, and what will certainly be of greater interest to CEQA lead agencies, the Court upheld the trial court’s award of the County’s administrative record costs—despite Petitioner having elected to prepare the record and having submitted a public records act request to obtain the administrative record documents. The Court relied on case law and statutory language establishing that a petitioner’s election to prepare the record does not preclude a prevailing lead agency from recovering costs associated with the record. This is true even when administrative record documents are sought under a Public Records Act request.

Key Takeaway

  • A lead agency can recover some costs associated with preparation of the administrative record, even if a petitioner elects to prepare the record and submits a public records act request for the record documents.