Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside, Super. Ct. No. GIN021552
The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, recently issued an opinion rejecting a challenge to the City of Oceanside’s certification of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR) for a 96-unit condominium development which allegedly would block ocean views and breezes enjoyed by neighboring plaintiff Mira Mar Mobile Community (Mira Mar). The case is of particular interest to projects that might have visual impacts on private parties and projects that might require mitigation of habitat loss via preservation.
The project involved two high-density condominiums ranging in height from 45 to 65 feet set on a 7.5 acre vacant parcel located within the City’s Downtown Redevelopment Project Area and adjacent to plaintiff’s community. Plaintiff alleged four deficiencies in the EIR:
- failure to identify feasible project alternatives;
- inadequate analysis of the project’s impact on plaintiff’s property;
- inadequate mitigation of impacts on coastal sage scrub; and
- insufficient findings.
The Court of Appeal rejected all of plaintiff’s assertions.
The court held that the EIR properly considered the impact on views from plaintiff’s property and that the EIR may focus on the project’s impacts on public views. The court wrote "[u]nder CEQA, the question is whether a project will affect the environment of persons in general, not whether a project will affect particular persons." The court found that an agency has discretion in determining substantial impacts, and that it was proper for the City to determine that only impairment of public views, as opposed to private views, would be considered significant. This may clarify the recent Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assoc., Inc. v. Montecito Water District case where the court held that visual impacts include private as well as public views.
The court also confirmed that it is appropriate for lead agencies to look to local planning thresholds when defining the visual impact standard. In this case, the City looked to the local coastal program, part of which sought to protect "public enjoyment of Coastal Zone scenic resources," to find that a significant visual impact is only one which affects the public and that they need only analyze the impact from public vantage points.
The court similarly rebuffed plaintiff’s arguments that the mitigation of the impact on coastal sage scrub was inadequate. The court approved the mitigation which involved the creation of new sage scrub habitat, the restoration of disturbed habitat, and the preservation of undisturbed habitat. Acknowledging that the project will result in a .23 acre net loss in habitat, the court found that substantial evidence in the record supported the determination that the project would not have a significant impact on this resource. This case may be helpful to those seeking to use preservation of habitat as a mitigation measure. Recent case law has sent mixed signals on the question of whether preservation can be a mitigation measure, as at least one court rejected the idea arguing that preservation does not replace developed land, see Friends of the Kangaroo Rat (recently depublished), yet another recent court found that preservation moderates the effects of urbanization and thus mitigates development. South County Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Elk Grove (unpublished). The Mira Mar decision strengthens the latter position by recognizing preservation of scrub habitat as an acceptable mitigation measure.
This case also included an important holding regarding alternatives analysis. The EIR included a different high density alternative. The court agreed with plaintiffs that inclusion of the high-density alternative which had greater impacts than the proposed project was inappropriate since it did not further CEQA’s purpose, they found the error to be harmless.
Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved
