Save Cuyama Valley v. County Of Santa Barbara: JMBM Scores Significant Victory In CEQA Ruling On Significance Thresholds And Mitigation Measures

In a decision published on February 8, 2013, the Second Appellate District ruled in favor of the JMBM client Troesh Materials, LLC in a challenge brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") against the County of Santa Barbara's approval of Troesh's Diamond Rock Sand and Gravel Mine and Processing Facility (the "Diamond Rock Mine"). The decision, Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (Case No. B233318), ruled on several important grounds under CEQA, and is further notable because it upholds the County's approval of an in-stream mining project within the bed of the Cuyama River. Troesh Materials, LLC was represented before the trial court and court of appeal by JMBM partner Scott N. Castro. The underlying County approval effort for Troesh's Diamond Rock Mine was led by JMBM partner Kerry Shapiro, leader of the Firm's land use group in San Francisco and co-chair of the Firm's Building Materials Group.

Background

The Diamond Rock Mine is located in the Cuyama Valley, in the eastern part of Santa Barbara County. The project proposes to mine an average of 500,000 tons per year sand and gravel from the bed of the Cuyama River, a intermittently dry river. The entitlement process for the project began in 2002, and Troesh submitted its formal application one year later. The County conducted six years of review and CEQA analysis for the project, and prepared iterations of the EIR for the project. During the County's review, extensive comments were received from the public and resource agencies, including multiple, detailed comments from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Office of Mine Reclamation, concerning potential effects of the Diamond Rock Mine on the Cuyama River as well as groundwater in the area. In May 2008, the County Planning Commission approved the project. This approval was appealed by appellant Save Cuyama Valley to the County Board of Supervisors, which on September 23, 2008, voted to deny the appeal and approve the project.

The Litigation

Appellant filed an action in superior court challenging the EIR and the County's actions on multiple grounds under CEQA, all of which were rejected by the trial court On appeal, Appellant limited their challenges to the EIR, arguing primarily that the County erred by:

(1) Employing a project-specific significance threshold, rather than the significance thresholds suggested in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines G thresholds, to analyze potential hydraulic impacts on the Cuyama River, and failing to adopt formally that...