In an unpublished decision in Quartz Hill Cares v. City of Lancaster, 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7571, the Court of Appeal for the Second District upheld the trial court’s discharge of a writ of mandate challenging an addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for a commercial retail development in the City of Lancaster (City).

The court clarified its previously ruling in Quartz Hill Cares v. City of Lancaster (Quartz I), 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2026, in which the court held the analysis of one project alternative in the FEIR lacked adequate supporting evidence. (For a complete analysis of Quartz I by the Thomas Law Group see our previous blog post: https://thomaslaw455.wpengine.com/unpublished-decision-holds-that-a-comparative-analysis-is-required-to-support-the-conclusion-that-an-alternative-is-economically-infeasible/). Following Quartz I, the City adopted an addendum to the FEIR supplying the missing data to support rejecting the project alternative and the trial court discharged the writ. 

Petitioner contended the trial court improperly discharged the writ because Quartz I required decertification of the entire FEIR. The court emphasized that the disposition must be read in conjunction with the opinion as whole. Although one sub-heading of the Quartz I opinion stated “Certification of the FEIR must be reversed[,]” the court held there was no ambiguity in the Quartz I disposition when read as a whole. Quartz I rejected all of petitioner’s challenges except for a narrow portion of the analysis of one alternative. Accordingly, the City was not required to decertify the entire FEIR to comply with the Quartz I decision. 

The court also rejected petitioner’s claim that the deficient portion of the FEIR was not severable from the FEIR. The trial court held that under Public Resources Code section 21168.9, the trial court had flexibility to tailor a remedy to fit the specific CEQA violation. Here, the deficiency was narrow and discrete, so the trial court did not err in finding that one section severable from the remainder of the FEIR.

Finally, the court rejected petitioner’s argument that the trial court erred in failing to require the City to recirculate the revised portion of the FEIR. Because Quartz I did not decertify the entire FEIR, an addendum was proper and circulation for public review was not required.

Photo of Amy R. Higuera Amy R. Higuera

Amy Higuera has successfully represented numerous clients in achieving favorable results in environmental law and land use entitlement matters.

Specifically, her practice includes representation and litigation involving CEQA and NEPA, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Government Reorganization Act of…

Amy Higuera has successfully represented numerous clients in achieving favorable results in environmental law and land use entitlement matters.

Specifically, her practice includes representation and litigation involving CEQA and NEPA, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Government Reorganization Act of 2000, the Subdivision Map Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act provisions associated with wetlands permitting. Amy also has experience representing real estate developers with the acquisition and disposition of commercial real estate, including due diligence title and zoning compliance review, as well as drafting and negotiating commercial leases. (Read more…)