Two weeks ago, CP&DR reported on a study by the law firm of Holland  & Knight that broke down 95 legal challenges to projects under the California Environmental Quality Act over the past 15 years. The study provided a comprehensive look for the firs ttime - finding, for example, that 60% of the cases challenged "infill" development projects as opposed to "greenfield", and over 70% of the cases were brought forth by local organizations. But what about the outcomes of these cases? Sixty percent of projects challenged may be "infill" type projects, but are they more likely to be shot down than "greenfield" type projects? Similarly, 73% of the cases were filed by local organizations, but to what extent are they victorious? The 15-year time period shows a success rate for plaintiffs of close to 50%, but did this trend hold over time? Seeking these answers, CP&DR broke down the Holland & Knight study to take a closer look at what's really going on. Here are some highlights: * Though more infill projects are challenged, these challenges are much less likely to be successful. Only 31% of infill challenges were successful, compared to 55% of greenfield challenges. * The success rate for legal challenges has been dropping steadily since 1997 - from 70% in the 1997-2002 period to only 34% in the 2007-2012 period. * Legal challenges are most likely to succeed against infrastructure and industrial projects (more than 60%). Challenges were least likely to be successful against commercial projects (less than 30%). * Legal challenges against public projects were more successful than legal challenges against private projects, though the difference was small (50% to 44%). * Local plaintiffs were more likely to succeed than non-local plaintiffs, though again the difference was small (49% to 41%).

All last year, local government nerds throughout California -- this one included  -- assumed that Jerry Brown would sign a bill to bring back redevelopment if one landed on his desk. So we were all shocked -- shocked! -- when he vetoed every substantive bill the Legislature gave him. (You can read about my surprise here . And based on the comments of some people at the UCLA land use conference on Friday, some of us are still shocked. But maybe we shouldn't have been. Maybe it's pretty simple.  Here's what San Gabriel City Manager said on Friday: "The governor will not sign a bill until he has clawed back every single penny from the successor agencies that he thinks he can get." Looked through this lens, I have to admit, it all makes sense. DOF is squeezing cities for all the former redevelopment funds it can possibly get, and the beancounters there are not done. The budget looks good, but Brown is not the kind of guy to let up once he sets his sights on something. And what leverage does he have? The veto pen. I've floated a lot of theories about this. He's still mad at the cities and wants to punish them. He doesn't want anybody to think he's going to let the old redevelopment system be resurrected in any way, shape or form, so he's waiting for the body to get cold. But maybe Steve's right: He's holding redevelopment revival hostage until he gets all his money. So simple.

The California Environmental Quality Act has long been driven more by the courts than by the Legislature. And 2013 is likely to be a big year in court for EQA. Five pending cases before the California Supreme Court -- and a sixth that might be heard -- could significantly affect how both localities and colleges apply the California Environmental Quality Act. The cases involve such items as infill exemptions, whether a lack of state funding makes a mitigation infeasible, whether lower fire response times are an environmental impact, and when to use a future environmental baseline.  Infill Exemption: Rendered Meaningless? Perhaps the most significant is a challenge to categorical exemptions for infill development and small structures that were used by the City of Berkeley in dealing with construction of a large house on an existing single-family home. The Court of Appeal ruled against the city  in  and if the Supreme Court affirms the lower court ruling it could punch a hole in the infill exemption in particular. The case involved the proposed construction of a large single-family home with a 10-car garage on an existing lot, resulting in a structure of almost 10,000 square feet. The plaintiffs in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley  said that this triggered the "unusual circumstances" exception to the infill exemption. The city noted that there are many other houses of similar size nearby, but the First District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. As Cox Castle & Nicholson's Michael Zischke put it, "Under Berkeley Hillside, every potentially significant impact is itself an unusual circumstance" -- which, of course, makes the infill exemption meaningless. State Funding of Mitigation Measures: Infeasible? The Supreme Court has also granted review in City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees , a case in which the Court of Appeal rejected California State University's argument that an off-site traffic mitigation associated with a development prject at San Diego State is infeasible because the state Legislature has not appropriated funding for it.  Several local agencies, led by the City of San Diego, sued, claiming that Cal State needed to look at a variety of funding sources. On appeal Cal State relied on City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University , 39 Cal.4th 341 (2006), in which the California Supreme Court concluded that the power of a state agency to mitigate impacts is "ultimately subject to legislative control" and if the legislature doesn't appropriate the money "the power does not exist". However, the Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded that the Supreme Court's language in the City of Marina case is dictum and therefore not binding. The court said Cal State should look to a variety of other possible funding sources for the money. Are Lower Response Times An Environmental Impact? One of the biggest debates around CEQA is whether its breadth reaches to impact on public services such as traffic, schools, and public safety. On the one hand, traffic is a well-established part of CEQA analysis; on the other hand, it's also well established that the impact of development on schools is not an environmental impact, unless it forces the construction of new schools which, in themselves, have an environmental impact. Which leaves public safety. In City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of California State University -- another dispute between a city and Cal State -- Hayward challenged Cal State's environmental impact report for the long-term master plan for Cal State East Bay. The EIR identified the impact on public services and noted that the the campus expansion would require the construction of a new fire station and the hiring of 11 new firefighters. However, the EIR concluded that the fire station's impacts would be less than significant because it would be built in an infill location, as would most of the expansion. Hayward sued, claiming that Cal State should have mitigated the cost impact of the additional firefighters. Relying on Goleta Union School District v. Regents, 37 Cal.App.4th 1025 (1995), the First District ruled against the city. "Although there is undoubtedly a cost involved int he provision of additional emergency services, there is no authority upholding the city's view that CEQA shifts financial responsibility for the provision of adequate fire and emergency response services to the project sponsor. The city has a constitutional obligation to provide adequate fire protection services." The court also upheld a traffic mitigation plan against Hayward's argument that the plan impermissibly punted on the mitigation. The Supreme Court has granted review but has deferred briefing until after the San Diego State case is determined. Can A Lead Agency Use A Future Baseline? Last spring, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled against a group of residents in the West Los Angeles neighborhood of Cheviot Hills who had challenged the use of a future environmental baseline in the environmental impact report for the Expo Line. The ruling muddied the waters on the whole future baseline question, so the Supreme Court will soon hear the case. The Expo Line construction authority's reasoning was that it made no sense to measure the projects environmental impacts against a current environmental baseline when a project won't be constructed for several years. In Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, the Second District ruled that   Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association v. City of Sunnyvale , 190 Cal.App.4th 1351 (2010), in which the Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled that Sunnyvale should not have used a future baseline to estimate traffic mitigations. The Second District also said that the California Supreme Court's ruling in Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast AQMD , 48 Cal.4th 310 (2010), did not apply in this case. In that case, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that because Conoco already had regulatory permission to emit a certain amount of pollutants, it could use a theoretical future baseline that assumed the permitted pollutant level had been reached.  Is All GIS Data Public? Here's one that is not a CEQA case, but Zischke says may be of interest to CEQA practitioners: When is a GIS database a "public record" subject to release at no cost under the Public Records Act and when is it a "computer mapping system" exempt from that law because it is software and, therefore, for which a government agency can charge a fee. CEQA analyses are often based on GIS analysis. In the case of Sierra Club v. Superior Court , the Sierra Club made a public records request for Orange County's GIS database, which included polygon boundaries for every parcel linked to names and addresses of parcel owners. Like many counties, Orange County has historically charged a fee for this information as a way to recoup cost, though it offered to provide the Sierra Club with a PDF version for free. The appellate court ruled that the GIS database was a computer mapping system exempt from the Public Records Act, meaning the county could charge a fee. Petition for Review Pending: Can An Initiative Be Adopted Without A Vote -- And Without CEQA Review? In December, CP&DR reported on a Fifth District Court of Appeal ruling that a voter initiative and CEQA that appeared to create a conflict between districts. That case is pending before the Supreme Court and review could be granted soon. In Jobs & Small Business Alliance Tuolomne v. Superior Court , Cal.Appl.4th 1006 (2012), the City of Sonora was considering a pending Wal-Mart application -- complete with EIR -- when Wal-Mart filed signatures for an initiative to create a change in the land-use regulations that dispensed with need for discretionary review for the project. Rather than placing the measure before the voters, the Sonora City Council adopted it -- as is their privilege under elections law -- and did not conduct a CEQA analysis on the change, as some previous case law suggests. The Fifth District ruled that this was impemissible and a CEQA analysis was required. However, in 2004, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled in another case, Native American Environmental Protection Assn. v. City of San Juan Capistrano , 120 Cap.App.4th 961, that legislative bodies do not have the discretion to conduct a CEQA review on an initiative they adopt rather than put before the voters. Thus, it would appear that a direct conflict between districts has been created.

End of Redevelopment Helps Balance Budget Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor has described Governor Brown's budget proposal as "roughly" balanced. Brown was able to save money from major cut backs- like last year's dissolution of redevelopment agencies, and voter-approved tax increases, like Prop 30.  Clearlake Completes Redevelopment Wind-Down Clearlake Redevelopment Oversight Board has approved its state mandated fund report- finding a negative balance of $1,648, city acquired properties totaling a worth of  $1.2 million, and more than $936,000 to be disbursed to the county.  DOF Mandates That Stanislaus County Return $10 Million to State The DOF has decided the former redevelopment funds were not restricted to projects despite an October review that found the $10 million to be restricted for housing projects per the county's 1991 agreement with California Legal Rural Assistance. State officials disagreed with the review and ultimately required $10 million be returned to the county auditor-controller by Dec. 21. Business Deals of Hercules Former Redevelopment Agency Remain Unsettled Disputes between the city and a local fitness business continue as both parties have differing views on amounts owed to the city and on the terms of an oral purchase and financing agreement. The city has also failed to collect money owed from a local restaurant that closed in December. With the restaurant owing the city more than $112,000, several employees are also coming forth with claims of unpaid wages.  HUD Approves Onizuka Redevelopment in Sunnyvale With HUD's approval, Sunnyvale can move forward on redeveloping the former Onizuka air force station. The redevelopment plan includes an affordable housing project and a Foothill-De Anza Community College campus.

Now that DOF has decided 240 redevelopment appeals, the next step shouldn't surprise anybody: The lawsuits are beginning to roll in: Murietta sues over affordable housing, city loan Murrieta has sued DOF over its decision to invalidate two payments – one a $3 million payment to the city from the RDA and the second a $1.2 million payment to developers on an affordable housing project called Monte Vista San Bernardino County sues to get loan repayment San Bernardino has become the rare county to sue DOF, claiming money it provided to a redevelopment project as a loan should not be given to other taxing entities but, rather, repaid to the county. El Cerrito settles DOF lawsuit, will skip "true-up" payment El Cerrito has settled its lawsuit with DOF, which permitted the city to skip a $1.7 million "true-up" payment Meanwhile ... Oakland tries to cover $18.5 million in clawbacks The city always used redevelopment funds aggressively to cover operating costs. Oakland claims 2,000 affordable housing units are at risk.

Almost 60% of lawsuits filed under the California Environmental Quality Act challenge environmental review projects in infill locations as opposed to greenfield locations, according to a new analysis of 95 recent cases by two lawyers at Holland & Knight. The new analysis comes on the heels of three other recent studies concluding that CEQA actions are struck down by courts between 40-60% of the time, compared to virtually zero for NEPA. Mixed-use projects and infrastructure projects were challenged more frequently than any other type of project. Most of the EIRs were challenged on the basis of  water supply, traffic, or air quality. The study by veteran CEQA hands Jennifer Hernandez and Daniel Golub also concluded that about 70% of the plaintiffs in these cases were local organizations, most frequently environmental or homeowner groups. About two-thirds of the projects were private development projects, while a third were public projects. The Holland & Knight study is the fourth study by private CEQA practitioners on trends on CEQA litigation – a topic that has been the subject of lots of political spin over the years but very little empirical research In 2011, veteran CEQA lawyer Clem Shute found that over a 40-year period, courts had found CEQA EIRs inadequate more than 40% of the time, compared to 0% -- yes, zero – for NEPA compliance by federal agencies. More recently, the Thomas Law Group – the firm of veteran CEQA lawyer Tina Thomas – found that EIRs were successfully challenged about half the time , while Negative Declarations were successfully challenged 60% of the time. A recent study by Holland & Knight using the same database found that 52% of Categorical Exemptions were struck down in court as well . The latest Holland & Knight report was an analysis not of outcomes but of who sues and over what. It was based on 95 court challenges to environmental impact reports between 1997 and 2012.

As cities around the state are still stinging from the state's decision to deny many of their 240 redevelopment appeals, redevelopment skirmishes still continue around the state -- often about affordable housing projects that cities claim are nearing completion. Here's a sampling: Santa Ana sues DOF over affordable housing project KABC The City of Santa Ana in Orange County is suing the state Department of Finance over DOF's decision not to permit the city to complete construction on a 41-unit low-income housing project the city claims is 75% completed. Meanwhile, Santa Ana's city manager and city attorney are under fire and may be at risk of losing their jobs, though this controversy appears unrelated to the redevelopment situation.  Arcata owes money to contractors even though DOF has demanded it Eureka Times-Standard Meanwhile, the North Coast city of Arcata in Humboldt County claims that much of the money DOF has demanded was already paid to -- or is still owed to -- contractors on the Sandpipe affordable housing project. Tulare County sues Porterville over RDA expansion Porterville Recorder Redevelopment may not exist anymore, but that didn't stop Tulare County from suing Porterville over a 1,500-acre expansion to its redevelopment project area in 2010. Presumably Tulare County is seeking a financial settlement over tax-increment funds collected between June 2010, when the expansion occurred, and February 2012, when redevelopment ended.

Approximately one-third of new housing units constructed in California's metropolitan counties between 2000 and 2009 were built in infill locations, according to a new report from the Environmental Protection Agency . The EPA Office of Sustainable Communities found that 386,000 infill units were built in the state's 19 metropolitan counties – 33.5% of the 1.15 million units built overall. This figure did not change between the boom years in the first half of the decade and the bust years in the second half. The Los Angeles-Orange County metro area (a separate metro area under the Census definition) led the state with 62% infill, followed by 59% in the Bay Area and 38% in San Diego. The highest percentage in the state was Santa Clara County (again, technically a separate metro according to the Census) with almost 80%. The lowest figures were 11% in the Inland Empire and 14% in both the San Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento Valley, suggesting that these inland areas continue to serve as the greenfield "escape valves" for crowded coastal metros. California's figure was significantly higher than the national total of 21% and about the same as the 32% total in the Northeast. Unlike in California, most metros saw an increase in infill construction during the bust. The EPA defined infill housing as housing constructed in Census block groups that were mostly developed in 2000. The agency used American Community Survey data, land cover analysis, and comparative aerial images in doing the analysis. % of New Housing In Infill Locations, 2000-2009

There's been a lot of redevelopment news around the state this week: DOF at your service: Santa Barbara ordered to sell parking lots and train depot . Modesto can't use redevelopment funds to pay off bonds for downtown projects . Ukiah surrenders Costco site to successor agency. ... Meanwhile, Lois Wolk seeks to eliminate voter approval for Infrastructure Finance Districts ... Housing setaside legacy project s NoHo apartment complex opens. Affordable housing project opens near Alkali Flats in Sacramento ... On a sad note, redevelopment lawyer Tim Sabo passes away ... And on the lighter side ... Sacramento's Mermaid bar -- sometimes used as Exhibit A in the fight over redevelopment in 2011 -- is up for sale. You can read Bill Fulton's defense of subsidizing the Mermaid bar as sound public policy here . And finally ... deep down you knew it was true:  Retailers  are the big losers in the death of redevelopment.

Exploiting a subtle difference between AB 32 and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's  2005 Executive Order that preceded the bill, environmentalists have successfully persuaded a San Diego Superior Court judge to strike down the environmental impact report for the sustainable communities strategy adopted by the San Diego Association of Governments. In ruling for the plaintiffs, Judge Taylor wrote that SANDAG's approach "kicks the can down the road" and "perverts the regional planning function of SANDAG". Although the facts of the case suggest that the impact might be limited only to San Diego, if the environmentalists can win an appellate court ruling, other SCS's around the state could be in trouble. In any event the ruling suggests that SANDAG's strategy of stretching the SCS timeline out to 2050 may not work. SANDAG adopted an SCS that stretched the time horizon out to 2050, but did an EIR showing that would reduce per-capita greenhouse gas emissions by 14% for 2020. The state Air Resources Board's target for SANDAG was 7% by 2020 and 13% by 2035. However, critics of the plan claim that after 2020, per-capita emissions will actually increase, resulting in a net decrease in per-capita emissions of 9% by 2050. ARB has set no target for 2050 and, despite rhetoric from Schwarzenegger to the contrary, AB 32 does not set a target for 2050. However, in 2005 Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-03-05 -- never rescinded -- which calls for an 80% reduction in GHG emissions statewide by 2050.  Like other metropolitan planning organizations around the state, SANDAG approved a sustainable communities strategy, or SCS, under SB 375 and tied it to the federally mandate regional transportation plan, or RTP. Whereas the RTP only extends to 2035, however, the SCS extends to 2050. The Cleveland National Forest Foundation, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Sierra Club sued, claiming that SANDAG front-loaded the SCS with freeway projects and did an inadequate job of dealing with long-term environmental impacts even it the time horizon was stretched out an additional 15 years. Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. SANDAG, San Diego Superior Court Case No. 2011-00101593.

While perhaps not surprising news to LAFCO wonks like Peter Detwiler, two recent decisions illustrate the special role that local agency formation commissions play in influencing local government and special district activities. The first decision, Citizens Association of Sunset Beach v. Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (October 5, 2012, G045878) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ , wrestles with the intersection of Proposition 218 voting requirements with LAFCO's ability to order island annexations. (Government Code section 56375.3) Originally developed in 1904, Sunset Beach is a small, unincorporated enclave located adjacent to Huntington Beach. Confined to less than 134 acres, Sunset Beach is home to roughly 1200 permanent residents.  As authorized by the Government Code, Orange County LAFCO ("OC LAFCO"), upon review of the location, size and status of Sunset Beach, concluded that the area met the qualification for an island annexation, and ordered it annexed to Huntington Beach. At the time, existing property owners within the city limits of Huntington Beach paid two taxes that their adjacent neighbors in Sunset Beach did not pay: a five percent utility tax and a pre-Proposition 13 retirement property tax. LAFCOs approval of the island annexation thus triggered the following question: Did Proposition 218 give the Sunset Beach voters the right to vote on the taxes as a condition to the annexation going forward. Voters within Sunset Beach filed suit. The trial court decided that 218 voting requirements did not extend to LAFCO-compelled island annexations completed under the authority of Government Code section 56375.3. The appellate court reached the same conclusion. In so deciding, the appellate court reviewed the history to voter enacted tax reform starting with Proposition 13 (1978). The appellate court reasoned that had the voters intended to apply the vote requirement to the then existing-statutory scheme which authorized island annexations, the voters would have drafted the measure to expressly do so. Failing the ability to find that legislative objective in Proposition 218, the appellate court declined to read the proposition in a manner to reach a result not reasonably read into the adopted text. The second case, although primarily a CEQA decision, also illustrates LAFCo's potential range. In Voices for Rural Living v. El Dorado Irrigation District , (October 4, 2012, C064280) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, affected parties filed suit, challenging El Dorado Irrigation District's ("EID") approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with a tribe, the effect of which was to increase the amount of water delivered by EID to the tribe for a casino operation. In 1989, the County LAFCO had approved an annexation request by EID to serve the tribal property. LAFCO imposed a condition which limited the water service for residential purposes and accessory uses, serving not more than 40 residential lots. Neither the tribe nor LAFCO ever challenged the validity of the limitation. A little more than ten years later, a casino was proposed for the property. This casino in turn necessitated the increase in water deliveries as well as construction of an on off ramp on Highway 50. The affected agencies prepared the required NEPA and CEQA documents. The water limitation proved problematic, and eventually EID become convinced that the LAFCO restriction was an improper limitation on EID serving a sovereign nation. EID then entered into the MOU with the tribe providing for water deliveries substantially in excess of those authorized under the LAFCO condition. Adjacent owners filed suit, alleging CEQA grounds along with the violation of the LAFCO restriction. The appellate court concluded that EID lacked the authority to unilaterally void the LAFCO limitation even in circumstances in which it thought the limitation was unconstitutional. This authority rests with the LAFCO or courts, not the agency charged with implementing the restrictions previously imposed. The appropriate course of action for EID was to go back to LAFCO (as it expressly had retained jurisdiction) and file a request for an amendment. In circumstances in which the LAFCO declined the amendment request, EID could then seek judicial review. LAFCOs are not exactly the new sheriff in town; they have been broadly empowered for decades.  As the these agencies become more confident in their independence and legal authority, expect them to take a seat at the table where important decisions are made regarding community growth and municipal organization. Citizens Association of Sunset Beach v. Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (October 5, 2012, G045878) ___ Cal.App.4th ___Voices for Rural Living v. El Dorado Irrigation District, (October 4, 2012, C064280) ___ Cal.App.4th ___

The Fourth District Court of Appeal has struck down the environmental impact report for a large development project in Santee, saying the EIR failed to deal with several water supply issues, including a discrepancy between the EIR and the water supply assessment as to how much water the project would consume. After a previous proposal was shot down by the voters, the City of Santee approved entitlements for the Fanita Ranch project, along with certifying an environmental impact report and a water supply assessment. Long in the planning stage, the proposed project at Fanita Ranch would involve development 970 acres out of a 2,600-acre real estate holding to build 1,380 single-family dwellings, 230 acres of a pedestrian-oriented village, and a 10-acre lake. About half the area, 1,400 acres, would be approved as an open space preserve. Opponents – including the Endangered Habitats League and the Center for Biological Diversity -- challenged the EIR, and the trial court found a CEQA error pertaining to fire safety. The trial court declined the opponents request to set aside all of the approvals, opting for limited relief as contemplated by Public Resources Code section 21168.9. The trial court also awarded attorneys fees to the opponents under the authority of Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5. Both sides appealed. The Fourth District held the EIR held to be inadequate for:  (1) Failure to explain a material discrepancy between the EIR and the water demand numbers in the water supply assessment;  (2) Failure to disclose potential uncertainties associated with long-term delivery of a firm water supply, and (3) Failure to assess impacts of groundwater extraction to fill and maintain a 10-acre project lake. As the project would meet the standards of a multi-species plan (while the plan was yet to be formally adopted the lead agency), the project's contribution would be less than considerable, affirming the cumulative impact analysis in the EIR. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision on the fire issue, but concluded that there were other deficiencies as well. First, as to fire safety impacts, the EIR relied upon a fire protection plan, one element of which was the open space fuel management strategies. When the City approved the project, it did not include the fuel management strategies as part of its approval (although not entirely clear, it may have been omitted due to species concerns.) As a consequence, the appellate court concluded that there was a lack of substantial evidence to support the conclusion of no or less than significant impacts. The appellate court did uphold the evaluation of cumulative impacts to biological resources. In this case, the lead agency had relied, in part, upon a draft multi-species plan. The multi-species plan had been adopted by the City and County of San Diego, but not the City of Santee. However, the EIR assumed that the City would either adopt the species plan, or adopt similar standards, but in either event, the project met the species plan standards and would not interfere with plan implementation. On this basis, the lead agency properly concluded that the project's contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. Turning next to the mitigation measures for the Quino checkerspot butterfly, the appellate court found that the EIR failed to describe the actions contemplated for active management for the Quino within the preserve area and were improperly deferred to a later to-be-developed management plan; thus the approvals failed to contain sufficient protocols and standards as a substitute. The appellate court also rejected the analysis of the project's water supply impacts and related matters. First, the court observed that there was a significant difference in water demand numbers set forth the EIR (1,446 AF) compared to those in the Water Code 10910-10912 assessment (881 AF) prepared for the project, but there was no reconciliation in the EIR as to these differences. In a very rigid analysis, the appellate court concluded that "such an unexplained discrepancy precludes the existence of substantial evidence to conclude sufficient water is likely to be available for the project." The appellate court also faulted the City in that the EIR failed to account for uncertain or known contingencies to a reliable water supply (deliveries ultimately tied to the State Water Project.) The EIR also failed to account for the impact of filling and recharging the 10 acre lake with groundwater, which potentially could compound the threshold issue of the water supply assessment, as the water district would be the only other source of potable water necessary to fill the lake. Addressing next the remedy question, the appellate court recognized that CEQA grants the trial court the discretion of a remedy commensurate with the nature of the CEQA violation and that invalidation of the approvals is not mandated in every instance. However, in light of the additional interrelated CEQA errors it identified, the court intimated that a limited remedy may not be appropriate, although, as the trial court had invalidated all of the local government approvals in a later court proceeding, the appellate court did not have to address the application of this discretion to the case pending before it. As to the award of attorneys fees and the ensuing appeal, the court remanded it back to the trial court in light of the plaintiff/appellants success on appeal for further proceedings. Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (October 19, 2012, D055215) ___Cal.App.4th ___.