1

Filed 9/29/23 Friends of the Green Bridge v. Dept. of Transportation CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or 

ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

FRIENDS OF THE GREEN 

BRIDGE, et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION,

Defendant and Respondent.

 A163405

 (Marin County Sup. Ct.

 No. CIV 1802702)

 

In this environmental dispute, Friends of the Green Bridge and Robert 

A. Johnson (collectively, Friends) challenge the final environmental impact 

report (FEIR) for the Lagunitas Creek Bridge Project in Marin County 

prepared by lead agency and respondent California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans).

1 Friends assert that the FEIR was deficient 

because it failed to consider the possibility of a retrofit among its range of 

reasonable alternatives. Friends further contend that Caltrans violated 

1 Caltrans is the lead agency for the project under both the California 

Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. (CEQA))

and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. 

(NEPA)). All statutory references are to the Public Resources Code unless 

otherwise specified. We refer to CEQA’s implementing regulations (Cal. Code 

Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) as “Guidelines” per common practice. .
2

CEQA by failing to recirculate the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) 

prior to certification given that the FEIR contained significant new 

information. The trial court thoroughly and thoughtfully considered and 

rejected both of these arguments. As we agree with the trial court’s analyses 

and conclusions, we affirm. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Lagunitas Creek Bridge Project

The Lagunitas Creek Bridge, locally called the Green Bridge, is located 

on State Route (SR) 1 in Marin County, just south of Point Reyes Station and 

north of the intersection with Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, approximately 

four-tenths of a mile east of the San Andreas fault. It serves as a vital 

connection between communities north and south of Point Reyes Station for 

residents, tourists, delivery trucks, emergency responders, transit providers, 

pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians. The bridge, which was built in 1929,

is a three-span structure with a total length of 152 feet. It has two 26-foot 

reinforced concrete approach spans and a 100-foot riveted steel pony truss 

center span.

Lagunitas Creek originates on Mount Tamalpais in Marin County and 

flows approximately 22 miles into Tomales Bay. The Lagunitas Creek 

watershed is the largest sub-watershed draining into Tomales Bay.

Environmentally sensitive habitat areas existing within the project footprint 

include wetlands, waters, riparian vegetation, and uplands that support a 

number of special-status or rare species, including coho salmon and 

steelhead.

The project was deemed necessary because the existing bridge does not 

meet current safety and seismic design standards. Indeed, deficiencies in the

bridge would likely cause it to fail during a strong seismic event. Moreover, 
3

the existing bridge and shoulders along SR 1 fail to provide continuous 

shared access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians.

B. The Environmental Review Process

After an inspection of the Lagunitas Creek bridge in 2008, Caltrans 

initially recommended certain measures to retrofit the bridge, such as filling 

the cracks on the deck to extend its life and strengthening the steel truss.

However, by 2010, a life cycle cost analysis was completed for the bridge 

determining that it had, at most, a 20-year remaining life. Given this fact—

along with the conclusion that any sort of seismic retrofit work would add 

additional dead load to the structure, which already had a low live load 

carrying capacity2—Caltrans concluded that retrofitting the bridge was not a 

viable option. A bridge inspection report in 2014 noted the bridge was 

“fracture critical” because it is a truss bridge with low redundancy.3

In March 2015, Caltrans submitted a Notice of Preparation to the 

California State Clearinghouse with respect to the bridge project. Public 

notice regarding the project was posted, published, and sent to numerous 

governmental agencies and members of the public. The notices indicated

that the intent of the project is to ensure that the crossing of Lagunitas Creek 

on SR 1 in Point Reyes Station meets seismic safety standards and addresses

the need for accommodating all users of the bridge. The proposed plan was to 

replace the current bridge with a new bridge in one of four feasible types 

2 The structural elements supporting a bridge must be sufficient to 

support not only the weight of the bridge itself (dead load) but also the 

temporary weight of the traffic crossing the bridge (live load). 

3 Fracture critical components are “those steel members that are under 

tension and the failure of which (through corrosion or cracking) could result 

in collapsing a portion of or the entire bridge.” When a bridge lacks 

redundancy, if any key connection is compromised, the bridge could fail 

during an earthquake or heavy traffic loads. 
4

meeting current Caltrans standards. However, Caltrans invited the public to 

participate in the upcoming scoping process which would include a discussion 

of the “range of alternatives to be considered.” And the public was 

encouraged to “review preliminary design concepts” and provide comments, 

“particularly on the range of alternatives, resources, and impacts that should 

be considered” during the environmental review process. 

1. Scoping Meetings

At the initial public scoping meeting in March 2015, Caltrans reported 

that a structural assessment of the bridge disclosed that the steel portions of 

the bridge were deteriorating, reducing its design strength, and that the 

bridge did not meet current standards for earthquake resistance. Caltrans 

presented an overview of the proposed replacement project, along with 

various project alternatives. With respect to a possible retrofit of the existing 

bridge, Caltrans raised the following concerns: (1) retrofitting would require 

the addition of significant amounts of steel to strengthen the existing 

structure, decreasing the weight capacity of the bridge which was already 

less than the modern standard; (2) steel bridges are susceptible to fatigue 

which gives them a finite lifespan, making retrofitting not cost-effective at a 

certain point; and (3) since the depth and type of piles used for supporting the 

bridge was not documented, it was impossible to determine the ability of the 

current foundation to withstand seismic activity. In connection with this 

discussion, Caltrans presented images of the bridge which showed cracked 

concrete and corroded metal components. It also explained that keeping the 

current bridge design was problematic in that it did not meet modern bridge 

design standards with respect to lane width, shoulders, sidewalk width, and 

curb ramps for individuals with disabilities. Caltrans sought public 

involvement in the project, requesting, among other things, suggestions for 
5

new viable alternatives and ways in which the existing alternatives could be 

improved. 

The comment period for the scoping process was extended from April 17 

to June 20, 2015, and resulted in 78 comments. Responders included 

regulatory agencies, businesses, private organizations, nonprofit groups, and 

members of the public. Common themes among the comments included: 

keeping the construction period short to minimize impacts; continuing to 

investigate a retrofit alternative; maintaining the current character of the 

bridge; minimizing construction and design impacts on sensitive habitats and 

the species they support; minimizing impacts on adjacent property owners; 

conducting traffic safety analyses; and planning with sea level rise in mind.

One community member with bridge seismic design experience—

Alistair Lizaranzu—commented in an April 2015 letter that, after reviewing 

the as-built drawings for the bridge and conducting a brief site visit, he saw 

“little information which would exclude a number of retrofit options.” 

Moreover, in his experience, “only in exceptional cases did a trouble bridge 

merit a Replacement option over a Retrofit option.” After Caltrans arranged 

for a bridge engineer to speak with Lizaranzu, he sent a follow-up letter in 

June 2015 indicating that he had provided several examples of procedures 

typically used in Caltrans retrofit projects and reiterating that he believed a 

retrofit option “should be very carefully considered[] and could perhaps be 

implemented.” However, he acknowledged that whether a retrofit could be 

successful depended “almost entirely” on the “very tricky issue” of the 

existing pier connection to the existing piles as well as whether various 

interventions could be used effectively to limit forces transferred to the piers. 

Lizaranzu additionally noted his primary concern with respect to the project 
6

was its possible impacts on the health and wellbeing of the salmon and 

steelhead in the creek. 

Given the interest in a retrofit option expressed during the scoping 

period, a Caltrans bridge engineer prepared a memorandum in August 2015 

to provide a reader-friendly review regarding existing conditions on the 

bridge and the feasibility of retrofit rather than replacement.4 The 

memorandum noted that commentors supporting a retrofit of the bridge were 

interested in reducing traffic delays, maintaining the existing scale and rural 

aesthetic of the bridge, shortening construction times to reduce economic 

impacts, and eliminating the need for property acquisition tied to creation of 

a temporary bridge. The memorandum goes on to explain the deficiencies in 

each element of the bridge (abutments, t-beam spans, piers, pier piles, and 

steel truss span) and the type of retrofit each would likely require.

For example, with respect to the steel truss span, visual inspections of 

the trusses and floor beams had found a range of 1/8 to 1/2 inch of rust pack 

between a number of steel component surfaces and the connections between 

several components of the steel truss. Many rivets also showed signs of 

corrosion. Moreover, steel begins to fatigue and crack over time, and an 

ultrasound or radiographic inspection might find cracking or significant 

corrosion between steel components.5 In addition, the existing concrete deck 

is weathered and cracked, and maintenance records showed significant rust 

4 The memorandum stated it was not a technical engineering document 

but was intended to acquaint members of the public interested in the 

proposed project with the issues involved in the retrofit of an old steel truss 

bridge. It also noted that Caltrans intended to continue its technical 

assessment of a retrofit alternative for the bridge project.

5 Indeed, as discussed further below, a subsequent inspection using 

ultrasonic testing confirmed these preliminary concerns based on visual 

inspection.
7

buildup between the top flanges of the floor beams and concrete deck. 

Finally, the steel railing, at only several inches wide, “is completely 

ineffective against today’s vehicular impact loading requirements.” 

Under these circumstances, each piece would need to be inspected to 

determine whether the steel cross section thickness had been reduced or was 

cracked, and then any deficient parts would need to be repaired or replaced 

for the loads they are meant to carry. This process would be even more 

complicated if steel plates were added to strengthen existing steel bridge 

components for seismic retrofit or increased traffic load capacity. There are

also issues with replacing rusted rivets (which are no longer used) with 

larger, high-strength bolts. Moreover, the bridge would need to be closed or, 

at the least, limited to one-way traffic during this process. In addition, the 

concrete deck and floor beams would likely need to be completely replaced, 

during which time the bridge would be closed to traffic. Finally, replacement 

of the bridge safety rail with a rail meeting current safety standards would 

result in 10-foot lanes and no shoulders, rendering the retrofitted bridge 

functionally obsolete.

Another issue with the retrofit option raised in the memorandum is 

that the as-built plans do not document the depth, type, and capacity of the 

piles supporting the piers. Since “no feasible way exists to structurally assess 

the tensile, compressive, and lateral capacities of the piles without 

compromising portions of the bridge,” retrofitting would likely involve

“driv[ing] new piles of known capacity around the existing piers, which could 

then support a retrofitted pier.”

After the initial scoping meeting, Caltrans began developing a range of 

possible alternatives for the project, including both replacement and retrofit 

options. It considered two construction methods—conventional and 
8

accelerated bridge construction (ABC). “Use of ABC would shorten the 

construction duration to under 1 year, versus three years for conventional 

construction. [Caltrans] determined that, due to lack of redundancy [in the 

bridge] the retrofit alternative can only be developed with the conventional 

construction method.”

Caltrans then held an additional informational meeting in October 

2015 to respond to public comments. It noted that the purpose of the 

proposed project was “to provide a safe, seismically-stable crossing over 

Lagunitas Creek on Route 1 in Marin County.” As Caltrans explained, the 

current bridge is seismically inadequate because: the piles are of unknown 

depth, which may have insufficient lateral and vertical support under 

earthquake loading; pier to substructure connections are inadequate for large 

seismic displacements; since there are no redundant structural elements, if 

any key connection is compromised the bridge could fail during an 

earthquake or heavy traffic loads; and possible large horizontal 

displacements of the steel trusses in an earthquake could cause them to fail. 

In addition to these seismic deficiencies, Caltrans described safety issues

with respect to the current bridge, including travel lane width, lack of 

shoulders, and inadequate safety barriers. The presentation also contained a 

visual explanation of existing bridge deficiencies, including many of the 

problems described in the retrofit feasibility memorandum discussed above. 

2. SWG Meetings and Additional Studies

Thereafter, under the theory that “public forums do not allow for 

efficient communication and collaboration,” Caltrans established a 

Stakeholders Working Group (SWG) so that “project details could be 

conveyed and input could be meaningfully incorporated.” Caltrans worked

with a former Marin County supervisor to identify representatives from the 
9

community to include in the group. It requested that the representatives be 

known and trusted spokespersons for existing community groups that 

represent the range of community interests, including business and tourism, 

farming and property ownership, safety and public services, community 

aesthetics, and environmental interests. Three SWG meetings were held 

from January to April 2016. Information discussed at the SWG meetings was 

condensed into two newsletters (March and June 2016) and distributed to the 

public. 

Structure Maintenance & Investigations (SMI) convened a strategy 

meeting in August 2016 to consider retrofit versus replacement of the bridge. 

After detailing the deficiencies in the current bridge and considering 

planning studies for retrofit and replacement which had been developed for 

comparison purposes, the group unanimously recommended replacement. 

The fact sheet issued in connection with the meeting indicated that the 

estimated cost for the replacement alternative was $6.425 million, while the 

estimated cost for the retrofit alternative was $8.861 million. Both estimates 

included construction of a temporary bridge. 

An additional report regarding corrosion of the existing bridge was 

completed in December 2016 using non-destructive ultrasonic testing and dry 

film thickness gauges, which use a magnetic principle to measure the 

thickness of coating on ferrous metals. While some of the representative 

locations tested showed more minor corrosion, the locations of faying surfaces 

where water appears to catch showed section losses exceeding 30 percent of 

designed member thickness. “In some cases, sufficient corrosion was present 

that member thickness was unmeasurable with [ultrasonic testing].” Based 

on a visual inspection, approximately four percent of bridge rivets appeared 

corroded. 
10

In March 2017, Caltrans completed an additional seismic evaluation of 

the existing bridge, including a discussion regarding how it could be 

retrofitted to the performance level of “ ‘no collapse.’ ” With respect to the 13-

pile group deep foundations supporting each of the two piers, the analysis 

assumed 12-inch diameter circular timber piles because that was the 

standard pile type used when the bridge was constructed and there were no 

records detailing the type, length, and capacity of the existing piles.

According to the report, both longitudinal and transverse seismic events 

would result in: shearing of anchor bolts connecting the superstructure to the 

substructure; brittle failure of the abutment columns causing them to 

collapse; insufficient flexural capacity leading to large diagonal cracking in 

the unreinforced concrete piers which could result in brittle failure of the 

piers; failure of the pile to pile cap connection and plunging of the piles in 

liquefiable soil, which could lead to failure of the piers; and overstressing of 

the fracture critical truss members, which could cause failure of the truss. 

Based on the findings in the seismic evaluation, a retrofit alternative 

would require replacement of the existing bearings, bridge deck, top flanges 

on all floor beams, gusset plates, expansion joints, guard rail, top and bottom 

plates of the top chords, bottom braces, all damaged rivets, and existing 

abutments, along with the construction of cast in steel shell (CISS) piles 

around the existing piles, new bent caps, a new concrete slab, and bridge 

rails. The CISS piles could be constructed with a one-lane closure.

Construction of the bent caps and abutments would require in-creek 

falsework, and jacking and temporary support would be needed to replace the 

existing pier and abutment bearings. After reviewing the December 2016 

corrosion report and the March 2017 seismic evaluation, SMI prepared 
11

another fact sheet dated March 29, 2017, stating that its replacement 

recommendation had not changed. 

Caltrans published an Alternatives Analysis Report (AAR) in April 

2017 in response to the SWG’s request for a screening of the full range of 

alternatives for possible inclusion in the upcoming environmental impact 

report (EIR). The AAR documented the alternatives analysis that had been 

conducted to that point and indicated that “[t]he alternatives development, 

refinement and analysis [would] continue throughout the environmental 

process, leading to selection of the preferred alternative.” It also stated that 

“project alternatives are continually being refined to avoid and minimize 

impacts and reflect community context.” For example, the concrete bridge 

alternative could incorporate a faux truss that could mimic the appearance of 

the existing bridge truss.

The ARR noted that a retrofit would require a three-year construction 

period,6 rebuilding or removing and refurbishing many elements of the 

bridge, building a temporary detour bridge, and extensive in-creek support 

work that would require diverting creek waters. In addition, there would be 

no sidewalk improvements for bicycle or equestrian users or for individuals 

with disabilities. And, while the “look and scale” of the retrofitted bridge 

would be similar, the retrofit would result in several elements being enlarged 

to meet seismic requirements. “For example, the steel members would be 

thicker[,] and the piers and abutment foundations would be enlarged, while 

6 The long construction period is required due to “short allowable 

periods for in-water work (June to October) in order to minimize impacts on 

protected wildlife species, and because construction of a detour bridge would 

be required.” Thus, for example, in the case of bridge replacement, one 

season would be needed to build the temporary bridge, a second season would 

be required for demolition of the existing bridge, and a third season would be 

used to build the new bridge and remove the temporary bridge.
12

the lanes would be narrowed to install protective railings needed for safety 

purposes.” The ARR also states that the “primary difference” between the 

alternatives as to the amount of sensitive habitat affected is whether a 

temporary bridge would need to be built. 

Caltrans and the SWG developed screening criteria in order to choose 

which alternatives would move forward for further consideration. 

Specifically, they considered whether an alternative would: meet the project 

purpose to achieve current safety and seismic requirements; be practical and 

feasible; minimize community impacts (minimize property acquisition, 

duration of construction, and degree of noise, dust, and visual blight during 

construction); and minimize environmental impacts (small construction 

footprint, least impact on water resources, minimize vegetation removal).

After applying these criteria to the retrofit alternative, considering the 

“substantial deficiencies” in the structural integrity of the existing bridge,

and noting “the uncertainty regarding the extensiveness of the efforts that 

would be necessary to complete the retrofit,” the SWG did not support the 

retrofit alternative. First, unlike all of the replacement alternatives, the 

retrofit alternative would not meet the project’s safety needs. Further, the 

retrofit alternative “would prove to be an extensive effort, result in 

comparatively higher environmental impacts than other alternatives under

consideration, and not provide improvements for multimodal connectivity 

(such as pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrian users).” 

More generally, the SWG unanimously concluded that “the 

conventional construction method requiring 3 years was not acceptable for 

the community’s economic stability that greatly relies on tourism and 

movement of goods via SR 1. Additionally, the 3-year construction period 

would result in elongated impacts on the ecosystem and aesthetic values 
13

surrounding the bridge site.” It would also require construction of a 

temporary bridge alongside the current bridge with its resulting 

environmental impacts. The SWG recognized that the trade-off with the ABC 

method is complete closure of the bridge for a two-to-three-week period, with 

the most likely detour being approximately nine miles. Caltrans and the 

SWG reviewed measures to mitigate the impacts from such a closure and the 

SWG asked Caltrans to further explore whether and how any obstacles and 

hardships associated with the bridge closure could be resolved. Applying all 

of these considerations, three replacement alternatives requiring 

conventional construction were not carried forward for further environmental 

review, along with the retrofit alternative. Only one alternative with 

conventional construction (Alternative 2b) was carried forward in the 

environmental analysis “as a point of comparison against the alternatives 

using the ABC construction method and to disclose the full range of potential 

impacts associated with the project.” 

3. Draft and Final EIRs and Related Documents 

Caltrans published the DEIR for the project in April 2017, reiterating 

the project purpose—“to provide a safe and seismically stable crossing of 

Lagunitas Creek on SR 1.”7 The proposed project “would replace the existing 

152-foot-long, 34-foot-wide, three-span bridge with a new bridge that would 

have 11-foot wide northbound and southbound lanes and five-foot-wide 

7 The DEIR describes the many seismic deficiencies of the bridge as 

well as its failure to meet current safety standards. For example, with 

respect to safety concerns, the DEIR states that the existing bridge “was 

designed to carry trucks much smaller (e.g., 15-ton trucks) than present day 

trucks (e.g., 36-ton trucks). Thus, the bridge is not adequate for all modernday truck loads. Although the bridge is only rated for smaller trucks, other 

trucks are known to use SR 1. There are no bridge rail barriers and if a truck 

was to drive into a truss, the structure may be compromised and fail.” 
14

shoulders on both sides. The new bridge would also accommodate one 6-footwide sidewalk on the west side of the bridge with railings or barriers to 

separate it from the shoulder and travel lanes. The sidewalk would 

accommodate shared access by pedestrians, bicyclists[,] and equestrians.” 

The proposed project would be placed on the same vertical and horizontal 

alignments as the existing bridge as closely as bridge design and conditions 

allow.

The DEIR includes discussion of the following six alternatives: NoBuild Alternative (Alternative 1); Three-Span, Short Steel-Truss Bridge, 

ABC, Longitudinal Move-In (Alternative 2a); Three-Span, Short Steel-Truss 

Bridge, Conventional Construction with Detour Bridge (Alternative 2b); 

Three-Span, Concrete Bridge, ABC, Longitudinal Move-In (Alternative 3a);

Full-Span, Steel-Truss Bridge, ABC, Longitudinal Move-In (Alternative 4a); 

and Full-Span, Steel-Truss Bridge, ABC, Traverse Slide-In (Alternative 4b). 

It also discusses the retrofit option at some length under the heading 

“Alternatives Considered but Withdrawn for Further Consideration.”8

According to Caltrans, it might prepare additional environmental or 

engineering studies in response to comments on the DEIR. The FEIR would 

then include responses to comments and identify the preferred alternative.

The 45-day public review period for the DEIR was extended an 

additional two weeks to June 23, 2017. Caltrans held two public meetings to 

discuss the DEIR on May 10 and June 15, 2017. It received 392 comments, 

the majority of which were concerned about potential impacts on the nearby 

8 Other alternatives that were considered but not carried forward 

included a new bridge on a new alignment, three of the four bridge 

replacement options using conventional construction, and a suspension 

bridge. 
15

animal hospital during construction. Many comments supported the no-build 

alternative, with the retrofit alternative as second choice.

On June 26, 2018, Caltrans issued an Addendum to the AAR in 

response to continued interest in a retrofit alternative. The Addendum 

expanded on the analysis of the retrofit alternative in the AAR, augmenting 

its discussion of the work that would be involved in a retrofit, including some 

possible alternatives for approaching a retrofit, and referencing a number of 

additional studies (including those discussed above) with respect to the state 

of the existing bridge. The Addendum reached the same conclusion as the 

AAR—that the retrofit alternative should not be advanced for full 

environmental review. 

The FEIR with respect to the project was certified on June 29, 2018.

Caltrans selected Alternative 3a—the three-span, concrete bridge, ABC, 

longitudinal move-in—as the preferred choice. Alternative 3a was selected 

primarily because: it is among the least environmentally impacting 

alternatives in terms of ground disturbance and property impacts during 

construction; it requires one of the smaller temporary construction easements 

on private property; it can be built quickly (less than one year); it is the 

narrowest among the alternatives; it does not detract from community 

character; it has the design with the least distraction of views toward the 

creek and of Point Reyes Station; it minimizes the duration and extent of 

environmental impacts to the aquatic habitat of Lagunitas Creek; and it has 

an open design that enhances line of sight for those turning onto SR 1 at the 

Sir Francis Drake Boulevard section. In addition, the inclusion of an 
16

ornamental truss continues to be an option. The estimated construction cost 

for the preferred alternative is $8 million.9

Caltrans then adopted findings pursuant to section 21081. The 

findings identified the following significant impacts from the project: BIO-1 

(wetlands and water of the U.S.); BIO-2 (aquatic habitat); BIO-3 

(environmentally sensitive habitat areas); BIO-4 (species of special concern), 

and NOISE-1 (increased noise levels during construction). Enforceable 

mitigation measures were adopted to avoid or substantially lessen those 

significant impacts. Caltrans filed a Notice of Determination with respect to 

the project on July 2, 2018. 

C. Court Challenge

In August 2018, Friends commenced this mandamus action against 

Caltrans alleging several violations of CEQA. After briefing and argument, 

the trial court denied the petition for writ of mandate on June 15, 2021, 

rejecting all of Friends’ claims. As is pertinent here, the court concluded that

inclusion of a retrofit alternative in the DEIR was not required because there 

was no evidence such a retrofit would reduce adverse environmental impacts. 

Moreover, a retrofit would not achieve compliance with current safety 

standards. The court additionally found that there was a reasonable basis for 

Caltrans’s selection of the alternatives it included in the EIR and that the 

EIR’s discussion as to why a retrofit alternative was not advanced for further 

environmental review adequately informed the public as to the bases for its 

exclusion. With respect to recirculation, the court concluded that the 

additions to the FEIR did not constitute significant new information. Thus, 

recirculation was not required.

9 The costliest alternative, at $12.6 million, was Alternative 2b, the 

only alternative using the 3-year conventional construction method.
17

This appeal followed. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. CEQA Overview and Standard of Review 

“An environmental impact report is an informational document,” the

purpose of which “is to provide public agencies and the public in general with

detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to

have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such

a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.”

(§ 21061.) As our Supreme Court has opined: “The purpose of an EIR is to 

give the public and government agencies the information needed to make 

informed decisions, thus protecting ‘ “not only the environment but also 

informed self-government.” ’ [Citation.] The EIR is the heart of CEQA, and 

the mitigation and alternatives discussion forms the core of the EIR.” (In re 

Bay-Delta etc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1162 (Bay-Delta).)

“A public agency must prepare an EIR or cause an EIR to be prepared 

for any project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a 

significant effect on the environment. [Citations.] The EIR must describe the 

proposed project and its environmental setting, state the objectives sought to 

be achieved, identify and analyze the significant effects on the environment, 

state how those impacts can be mitigated or avoided, and identify

alternatives to the project, among other requirements.” (Federation of 

Hillside & Canyon Assns. v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1180, 

1197.) “The agency must notify the public of the draft EIR, make the draft 

EIR and all documents referenced in it available for public review, and 

respond to comments that raise significant environmental issues. [Citations.] 

The agency also must consult with and obtain comments from other agencies 

affected by the project and respond to their comments. [Citations.] It must 
18

prepare a final EIR including any revisions to the draft EIR, the comments 

received from the public and other agencies, and responses to comments.” 

(Ibid.)

“Much of what goes into an EIR is left to the discretion of the agency 

preparing it. The leading treatise summarizes: ‘The lead agency has 

discretion to design the EIR and need not conduct every recommended test or 

perform all required research. [Citations.] An EIR is not required to address

all of the variations of the issues presented. [Citation.] An analysis of every

permutation of the data is not required.’ ” (Tiburon Open Space Committee v.

County of Marin (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 700, 726 (Tiburon Open Space); see

Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California

(1998) 47 Cal.3d 376, 415 (Laurel Heights I) [“A project opponent . . . can

always imagine some additional study or analysis that might provide helpful

information. It is not for them to design the EIR. That further study . . .

might be helpful does not make it necessary.”].)

“The scope of judicial scrutiny proceeds along two paths. ‘ “Section 

21168.5 provides that a court’s inquiry in an action to set aside an agency’s 

decision under CEQA ‘shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial 

abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not

proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is

not supported by substantial evidence.’ As a result of this standard, ‘[t]he

court does not pass upon the correctness of the EIR’s environmental

conclusions, but only upon its sufficiency as an informative document.’

[Citation.]” [Citation.] “We may not set aside an agency’s approval of an EIR

on the ground that an opposite conclusion would have been equally or more

reasonable.” [Citation.] [¶] “An appellate court’s review of the

administrative record for legal error and substantial evidence in a CEQA
19

case, as in other mandamus cases, is the same as the trial court’s: The

appellate court reviews the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision; in

that sense appellate judicial review under CEQA is de novo.” [Citation.]’ ”

(Tiburon Open Space, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 727.)

“ ‘The agency is the finder of fact and a court must indulge all 

reasonable inferences from the evidence that would support the agency’s 

determinations and resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the 

agency’s decision. . . . “A court’s task is not to weigh conflicting evidence and 

determine who has the better argument when the dispute is whether adverse 

effects have been mitigated or could be better mitigated. We have neither the

resources nor scientific expertise to engage in such analysis, even if the

statutorily prescribed standard of review permitted us to do so.” [Citation.]

“[T]he relevant inquiry here is not whether the record establishes compliance

but whether the record contains evidence [the agency] failed to comply with

the requirements of its . . . regulatory program. In the absence of contrary

evidence, we presume regular performance of official duty. [Citation.]” ’

[Citation.] [¶]. . . In other words, ‘every court ‘presumes a public agency’s

decision to certify the EIR is correct, thereby imposing on a party challenging

it the burden of establishing otherwise.’ ” (Tiburon Open Space, supra, 78

Cal.App.5th at pp. 727–728.)

“Legal error, in the form of failure to comply with CEQA, is reviewed

independently, but all factual determinations are reviewed according to the

substantial evidence standard.” (Tiburon Open Space supra, 78 Cal.App.5th

at p. 728.) Under CEQA, “substantial evidence” is defined as “enough 

relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a 

fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other 

conclusions might also be reached.” (Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a).) “ ‘The
20

substantial evidence standard is applied to conclusions, findings[,] and

determinations. It also applies to challenges to the scope of an EIR’s analysis

of a topic, the methodology used for studying an impact and the reliability or

accuracy of the data upon which the EIR relied because these types of

challenges involve factual questions.’ ” (Tiburon Open Space, supra, 78

Cal.App.5th at p. 728.)

B. The EIR Included a Reasonable Range of Alternatives

1. Applicable Law

“An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project 

. . . which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but 

would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the 

project[] and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” 

(Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (a).) This requirement—that a lead agency

select “a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives”—is intended 

to “foster informed decisionmaking and public participation.” (Ibid.; see

Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 404; California Oak Foundation v. 

Regents of University of California (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 227, 276.) A lead 

agency must publicly disclose the reasoning underlying its selection of 

alternatives. (Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (a).) However, “[t]here is no

ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed

other than the rule of reason,” which requires an EIR “to set forth only those

alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.” (Id., § 15126.6, subds.

(a) & (f); see Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d

553, 566 [“CEQA establishes no categorical legal imperative as to the scope of

alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR. Each case must be evaluated on its

facts, which in turn must be reviewed in light of the statutory purpose.”].)
21

“An EIR need not consider every conceivable project alternative or

alternatives that are infeasible. [Citations.] Nor is it required to consider

specific alternatives proposed by members of the public or other outside

agencies. [Citation.] But it must consider ‘a reasonable range of 

potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decisionmaking 

and public participation.’ ” (Save Our Capitol! v. Department of General 

Services (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 655, 703.) 

CEQA defines “feasible” as “capable of being accomplished in a 

successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account 

economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (§ 21061.1; 

Guidelines, § 15364.) As stated above, however, “[a] ‘feasible’ alternative is

one that could accomplish ‘most of the basic objectives of the project but

would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects.’

(Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (a), italics added.) We will uphold an agency’s

choice of alternatives unless they ‘are manifestly unreasonable and . . . do not

contribute to a reasonable range of alternatives.’ ” (Tiburon Open Space,

supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 741.) 

2. Analysis

Friends argue that Caltrans’s failure to analyze a retrofit option in the 

EIR violated CEQA’s mandate that the agency assemble a range of 

alternatives sufficient to engender informed decision making. Specifically, 

they assert: that a retrofit alternative is the “most obvious” alternative to 

replacement; that it is clearly potentially feasible; that it satisfies basic 

project objectives; that it could avoid or lessen significant environmental 

effects; and that its exclusion compromised CEQA’s goal of informed 

decisionmaking. We disagree.
22

Preliminarily, that an alternative may be superficially “obvious” does 

not mandate its inclusion in an agency’s range of alternatives. Nor does the 

fact that members of the public desired a retrofit alternative undercut 

Caltrans’s decision to exclude it from further environmental review. 

Moreover, while we agree with Friends that a retrofit might be potentially 

feasible in the general sense of the word—i.e., capable of being 

accomplished—that does not mean it is potentially feasible for CEQA 

purposes or that it should have been included among the EIR’s range of 

alternatives as we discuss further below.

As for whether a retrofit alternative would accomplish most of the basic 

objectives of the project, we disagree with Friends that the administrative 

record establishes that the only purpose of the project was to make the bridge 

seismically stable, and that Caltrans tried to “slip in” additional objectives 

related to safety late in the process to justify its decision to reject a retrofit 

alternative. To the contrary, at least one of the initial public notices during 

the scoping period stated that the intent of the project was to ensure that the 

crossing of Lagunitas Creek on SR 1 in Point Reyes Station meets seismic 

safety standards and addresses the need for accommodating all users of the 

bridge. Moreover, at the first scoping meeting in March 2015, Caltrans 

explained that keeping the current bridge design was problematic in that it 

did not meet modern bridge design standards with respect to lane width, 

shoulders, sidewalk width, and curb ramps for individuals with disabilities. 

And these issues were reiterated at the second scoping meeting in October 

2015, where the purpose of the project was declared to be “to provide a safe, 

seismically-stable crossing over Lagunitas Creek on Route 1 in Marin 

County.” (Italics added.) This purpose was carried forward into the FEIR, 

and clearly includes more than safety solely from a seismic standpoint as 
23

Friends contend. For example, the AAR identified “meeting safety 

standards” as one of the screening criteria for inclusion of alternatives in the 

DEIR and noted, in determining not to advance a retrofit alternative, that it 

was the only alternative that would not meet the project’s safety needs.

Friends also fault Caltrans for failing to “perform the work” to remove 

the uncertainty involved in a bridge retrofit before making its decision to 

exclude a retrofit alternative from the EIR. However, substantial evidence 

exists in the record that there is significant uncertainty in a retrofit option 

that cannot be dispelled, especially with respect to the state of the existing 

piles. The August 2015 memorandum discussing the retrofit alternative 

noted that “no feasible way exists to structurally assess the tensile, 

compressive, and lateral capacities of the piles without compromising 

portions of the bridge.” And, as stated in the FEIR: “There are no available 

construction plans documenting the piles from the original construction so 

the piles supporting the bridge are of unknown type and depth. In addition, 

their condition after 89 years of use and exposure to water is unknown 

because they are buried and cannot be inspected.” Uncertainty is also 

inherent in any project where elements must be taken apart and inspected

before the scope of the retrofit effort can be fully appreciated.

Friends next contend that the “constant public pushback” requesting a 

retrofit option shows that Caltrans’s approach prevented informed public 

participation and decision making. And they ascribe nefarious motives to 

Caltrans for its “unusual maneuvers” in continually providing “after the fact” 

justifications for its exclusion of a retrofit option up and until the FEIR’s 

certification in June 2018. We do not view the record this way. Rather, as 

early as the August 2015 retrofit feasibility memorandum, Caltrans indicated 

that it intended to continue its technical assessment of a retrofit alternative. 
24

Caltrans later stated it might prepare additional environmental or 

engineering studies in response to comments on the DEIR. Given the 

significant public interest in the retrofit option, we find it eminently 

reasonable that Caltrans would continue to study the matter throughout the 

environmental review process and in response to comments it received. And, 

while the additional studies may not have supported the retrofit option some 

members of the public hoped for, it cannot be said they did not contribute to 

informed public participation and decisionmaking.

In the end, Friends really seem to be arguing that there is some 

objectively “true” or “legitimate” retrofit option out there which Caltrans has 

not considered or discussed and which would lessen environmental impacts 

while meeting project goals. But there is no evidence in the record that 

suggests such a reduced-impact retrofit was possible, and substantial

evidence exists in the record supporting a conclusion that it was not. As 

CEQA declares: “[I]t is the policy of the state that public agencies should not 

approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives . . . which 

would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such 

projects . . . . [T]he procedures required by this division are intended to 

assist public agencies in systematically identifying . . . the feasible 

alternatives . . . which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant 

effects.” (§ 21002, italics added.) 

Thus, as stated above, the EIR need only describe a “range of 

reasonable alternatives to the project . . . which would feasibly attain most of 

the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any 

of the significant effects of the project.” (Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (a).) 

And “feasible” for CEQA purposes means capable of successful

accomplishment “within a reasonable period of time, taking into account 
25

economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (§ 21061.1; 

Guidelines, § 15364, italics added.) At bottom, Friends cannot establish

Caltrans erred in excluding a retrofit alternative from the EIR because

substantial evidence supports the conclusions that a retrofit would not lessen

environmental impacts and could not be completed in a reasonable amount of

time based on community constraints.

As mentioned above, when determining which alternatives should be

analyzed in the DEIR, the SWG unanimously concluded that “the 

conventional construction method requiring 3 years was not acceptable for 

the community’s economic stability that greatly relies on tourism and 

movement of goods via SR 1. Additionally, the 3-year construction period 

would result in elongated impacts on the ecosystem and aesthetic values

surrounding the bridge site.” It would also require construction of a 

temporary bridge alongside the current bridge with its resulting 

environmental impacts. For these reasons, three replacement alternatives 

requiring conventional construction were not carried forward for further 

environmental review, along with the retrofit alternative which also required 

conventional construction. One alternative with conventional construction 

(Alternative 2b) was carried forward in the environmental analysis “as a 

point of comparison against the alternatives using the ABC construction 

method and to disclose the full range of potential impacts associated with the 

project.” It was not unreasonable for Caltrans to use Alternative 2b as the 

point of comparison rather than the retrofit option, as Alternative 2b met all 

the project needs while a retrofit would not. And, as stated in the FEIR, 

“[w]hile Alternative 2b is the only alternative evaluated with conventional 

construction, the impacts would be comparable if conventional construction 

were performed with any of the bridge types.”
26

Friends do not deny that a retrofit option was most similar to 

Alternative 2b. Nor do they dispute that it would require a three-year 

conventional construction period, including the installation and demolition of 

a temporary bridge. And substantial evidence supports these conclusions. As 

such, Caltrans would have been justified in deeming a retrofit option

infeasible because it could not be completed within a reasonable period of 

time, considering both the uncertainties inherent in a retrofit and the 

economic impacts a three-year construction period would have on the 

community, which relies so heavily on tourism. 

Moreover, Friends’ cursory claims to the contrary notwithstanding,10 it 

is clear that a retrofit alternative spanning three years and requiring 

creation of a temporary bridge would increase rather than decrease 

environmental impacts, which is why both the community and environmental 

regulatory agencies “strongly oppose” conventional construction. Indeed, 

most of the alternatives using conventional construction were removed from 

consideration due to “[l]asting noise, air quality, and debris effects” and 

“[p]rolonged disturbance of the sensitive habitats that support threatened 

and endangered species associated with Lagunitas Creek.”

As just one example, with respect to impacts on habitats for threatened 

and endangered species, Alternative 2b’s impacts were deemed similar to 

alternatives using ABC such as 2a and 3a, “except a larger amount of upland 

10 Friends argue, for example, that a retrofit would lessen noise impacts 

because it would not require demolition of the bridge and vibratory pile 

driving, but they ignore the facts that construction and demolition of the 

temporary bridge would be necessary under a retrofit alternative; that pile 

driving would be required to construct the temporary bridge; that a bridge 

retrofit would also require the installation of new piles given the uncertainty 

surrounding the existing piles; and that extensive in-water support of the 

existing bridge would be required. 
27

area would be impacted and the additional piers in the water for the building 

of a temporary detour bridge would have greater effects on the aquatic 

species (tidewater goby, Chinook salmon, steelhead, coho salmon, green 

sturgeon, [California red-legged frog], and [California freshwater shrimp]). 

Grading, clearing, and advance tree removal of upland areas that are not 

restored within 1 year of impact are considered permanent impacts. The 

longer duration of construction could directly affect [California red-legged 

frog] breeding and foraging activities within the project footprint and would 

increase the potential for take of all of the aquatic species. The 3 years of 

dewatering activities would increase the potential for take of threatened and 

endangered aquatic species.” A review of Table S-3 comparing project 

impacts shows a number of additional increased impacts for Alternative 2b 

due to the three-year construction period and temporary detour bridge. It is 

reasonable to assume that the environmental impacts with respect to a 

retrofit would be at least as great as those ascribed to Alternative 2b and 

could be even greater due to the additional in-water work required to support

the existing bridge during a retrofit effort.11 

In sum, substantial evidence supports Caltrans’s decision to withdraw 

a retrofit alternative from further consideration. Under such circumstances, 

11 Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 

1059, cited by Friends, is distinguishable on this basis. There, the EIR for 

the city’s general plan improperly rejected a reduced growth alternative 

because it would not have achieved all of the project’s objectives. (Id. at pp. 

1087–1088.) The appellate court concluded that the reduced growth 

alternative should have been included because it would have “provided the 

decision makers with information about how most of the project’s objectives 

could be satisfied without the level of environmental impacts that would flow 

from the project.” (Id. at p. 1090, italics added.) Here, in obvious contrast, 

not only would a retrofit fail to achieve all of the project’s objectives, but it

would also fail to decrease the project’s environmental impacts.
28

Caltrans’s selection of alternatives for analysis in the EIR was not manifestly 

unreasonable, providing as it did a range of feasible replacement options for 

consideration. Friends has failed to meet its burden of proving otherwise.

C. Recirculation was not Required

Friends also argue that Caltrans violated CEQA by failing to 

recirculate the EIR for additional public review before certification, despite 

adding “ ‘significant new information’ ” in the FEIR and Addendum that was 

very important to the public. Friends accuse Caltrans of trying to “slip this 

information into the record at the eleventh hour to justify its premature and 

unsupported decision to exclude every seismic retrofit approach from the 

EIR.” Under such circumstances, Friends allege, failure to recirculate the 

EIR was a “clear” abuse of discretion. We are not persuaded.

1. Additional Background

As mentioned above, the DEIR discussed and rejected the possibility of 

a retrofit alternative for the bridge, determining it was not feasible. 

Specifically, the DEIR explained:

“Caltrans explored the possibility of retrofitting the existing bridge as 

an alternative to bridge replacement. According to the Seismic Evaluation of 

Lagunitas Creek Bridge (Caltrans 2017), many elements of the bridge are 

extremely vulnerable to failure during a seismic event. See Section 1.2.2, 

Project Need, for details about the current condition of the bridge. Caltrans 

structural engineers explored the methods for retrofitting the bridge and 

learned that retrofitting the bridge would require the following: 

• As explained in Section 1.2.2, Project Need, there are existing bridge 

deficiencies associated with the piles, piers, and abutments, as well as 

the truss itself. Virtually each major structural element[] of the bridge 
29

would require reinforcement, replacement, or refurbishing. This effort 

would be unpredictable and could have unforeseen delays.

• An extensive support structure would have to be built under the bridge 

to support the bridge during the dismantling and restoration process. 

Working on reinforcements to the piers and abutments would require 

removing the bridge deck and T -spans. The presence of thick rust in 

the truss would require removing gusset plates and thickening the steel 

members to meet current seismic requirements. Without truss 

members, the bridge deck could not be supported. The existing bridge 

does not have redundancy in the structure; therefore, as the bridge is 

dismantled to be retrofitted, the structure would have to rely on a 

massive temporary support structure built under and within Lagunitas 

Creek to avoid collapse. 

• A support structure would be difficult to construct and remove within 

the limited allowable in-water work period mandated by the federal 

Endangered Species Act to protect threatened and endangered species. 

A creek water diversion would be necessary. Due to the amount of 

development on three corners of the bridge, a creek diversion would 

require relocating a business and/ or residence, large impacts on 

extensive riparian habitat, as well as substantial changes to

Whitehouse Pool Park. As remarked previously, Section 4(f) requires 

that federally funded projects avoid parklands if there are feasible and 

prudent alternatives to do so. A creek water diversion has the potential 

for substantial impacts on protected species and their habitat due to 

destruction of habitat, large amounts of siltation from new water 

course, and a narrower channel that would change the water velocity. 

The regulatory agencies would resist permitting a project that would 
30

result in substantial environmental impacts to protected aquatic 

species if other alternatives with less impact are equally feasible. 

• A temporary detour bridge would be necessary to safely maintain 

circulation during construction for the following reasons: 

– There is not enough room on the bridge for both construction 

workers and moving vehicles, creating safety issues for drivers 

and workers during the retrofit. 

– The temporary support structure would have to be strong enough 

to carry both the weight of the existing bridge and the weight of 

passing vehicles, which together are heavier than the 

requirements for the final retrofit bridge. 

– The retrofit would require removing the bridge deck and truss 

elements, not only to replace or refurbish but also to access and 

strengthen the piers and abutments. 

“Finally, the retrofit would not resemble the existing bridge because 

the steel members would be thicker, the piers and abutment foundations 

would be enlarged, and the lanes would be narrower in order to accommodate 

the required protective railings. Narrowing the lanes would not be in 

compliance with Caltrans safety design standards. There would be no 

improvements to sidewalks for bicycle, pedestrian, or equestrian users. The 

current sidewalk conditions do not meet [federal disability] requirements, 

and under the retrofit alternative, this lack of compliance would continue.

“Because the retrofit alternative would be an extensive effort, would 

result in comparatively much higher environmental impacts (including use of 

park land and adverse effects on special status species) than other 

alternatives under consideration, [and] would not provide improvements for 

multimodal connectivity (such as pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrian 
31

users), this alternative was not carried forward into further environmental 

review.”

After issuing the DEIR, Caltrans received 392 comments (332 from 

members of the public). One of the common requests in the comments was 

that Caltrans review a range of retrofit alternatives or a “ ‘less intensive’ ”

retrofit alternative. In response, Caltrans released the Addendum to the 

Alternative Analysis Report on June 26, 2018, which, among other things, 

“refin[ed] the definition of and efforts associated with the retrofitting of the 

bridge (including optional approaches to retrofit the bridge).” The 

conclusions in the April 2017 Alternatives Analysis Report did not change. 

Rather the Addendum supplied “some expanded details, clarifications, and 

supporting data.”

Although several different options exist for retrofitting both the 

superstructure and the substructure, all retrofit approaches would “require a 

similar level of effort and would result in similar environmental impacts.” 

Specifically, all retrofit alternatives would require at least a three-year-long 

construction period; have greater environmental impacts than the 

replacement alternatives due to impacts in the creek channel from more 

supports during construction; require installation of a safety barrier which 

would narrow roadway width and eliminate the shoulder, making the 

roadway substandard; and require “substantial effort (replace substantial 

number steel truss members; contain and remove lead paint on all members 

that are contacted in the replacement process).” 

After considering comments on the DEIR and releasing the Addendum, 

Caltrans certified the FEIR in June 2018. The section in the FEIR describing 

why the retrofit alternative was removed from further consideration provides

as follows: 
32

“Caltrans considered the possibility of retrofitting the existing bridge as 

an alternative to bridge replacement. A retrofit alternative is proposed when 

the current structure has deficiencies that can be repaired without full 

replacement. The seismic risk to the bridge is detailed in several studies 

completed by Caltrans available on the project’s website 

(http://www.dot.ca.gov/d4/lagunitascreekbridge/). According to the Seismic 

Evaluation of Lagunitas Creek Bridge (Caltrans 2017a), many elements of

the bridge are vulnerable to failure during a seismic event. See Section 1.2.2, 

Project Need, for details regarding the current condition of the bridge.

“As explained in Section 1.2.2, there are existing bridge deficiencies 

associated with the piles, piers, and abutments, and severe corrosion on the 

steel truss itself, particularly on fracture-critical components.[] According to 

the Investigation of Corrosion of Lagunitas Creek Bridge No. 27 0023, CA 

Route 1 PM 28.1 (Caltrans Office of Structural Materials 2016), virtually 

each major structural element of the bridge would require reinforcement, 

replacement, or refurbishing. In addition to the prolonged time required to 

replace these corroded components, this repair option is complex and would 

require a substantial temporary support structure (to hold the superstructure 

while dismantling, needed due to the lack of redundancy in the 

superstructure) underneath the truss at the bottom connections and adjacent 

nodes. A temporary support structure poses greater risks to the bridge 

because the additional weight of the support structure would result in the 

need for a larger substructure (pier and abutment retrofit) for the bridge. 

Collectively, these would cause greater environmental impacts than the 

comparable alternatives under evaluation. Furthermore, the lack of 

redundancy in the bridge structure and the narrowness of the bridge prevent 

both construction workers and motorists from being on the bridge while work 
33

is being performed on the truss. Due to these factors, a retrofit effort would 

be unpredictable and could have unforeseen delays and is generally not a 

prudent use of resources relative to the limited lifespan that can be achieved 

through a retrofit effort. 

“In addition, Caltrans has determined that meeting its Highway Design 

Manual ‘no collapse’ criteria for a retrofit of the Lagunitas Creek Bridge 

would entail a substantially larger effort (in light of the higher than expected 

corrosion findings throughout the steel truss members) than the replacement 

Build Alternatives, involving at least 3 years of construction, and a detour 

bridge that would increase the area and duration of environmental impacts. 

“Finally, in addition to the primary seismic concerns, the retrofit would 

not meet the safety elements that the replacement alternatives would. As 

noted previously, even without the seismic vulnerabilities, the current truss 

is vulnerable to potential collapse if a vehicle were to have a collision with 

either side of the truss. Under a retrofit scenario, a safety barrier is required 

to be installed to deflect vehicles from colliding into the non-redundant truss 

structure. This would reduce the travel way by 3 to 4 feet, which would 

remove the 2-foot shoulders. Safety research has shown a high correlation 

between narrow lanes and increased risk of accidents on rural two-lane 

highways (FHWA 2000). Finally, it does not fulfill Caltrans’ Deputy 

Directive 64-Rl Complete Streets–Integrating the Transportation System, 

which states that the needs of users of all ages and abilities must be met, 

[including] safe non-motorized accessibility elements. Therefore, this 

alternative was not carried forward for further environmental review.” 

(Italics omitted.)
34

2. Applicable Law

An EIR must be recirculated if “significant new information” is added

after issuance of the draft EIR and prior to certification of the final EIR.

(§ 21092.1; Guidelines, § 15088.5, subd. (a).) Recirculation requires making

the revised EIR available for public review and consulting with other

agencies again before certification. (Citizens for Positive Growth &

Preservation v. City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609, 631;

Guidelines, § 15088.5, subd. (d).) “[N]ew information is ‘significant,’ within

the meaning of section 21092.1, only if as a result of the additional

information ‘the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a

meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse

environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such

an effect.’ [Citations.] Recirculation is not mandated under section 21092.1

when the new information merely clarifies or amplifies the previously

circulated draft EIR, but is required when it reveals, for example, a new

substantial impact or a substantially increased impact on the environment.” 

(East Oakland Stadium Alliance v. City of Oakland (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th

1226, 1265 (East Oakland Stadium Alliance), quoting Vineyard Area Citizens

for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412,

447.) 

The Guidelines provide the following as examples of “significant new 

information” requiring recirculation: “(1) A new significant environmental 

impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure 

proposed to be implemented. [¶] (2) A substantial increase in the severity 

of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are 

adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. [¶] (3) A 

feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different 
35

from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant 

environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline 

to adopt it. [¶] (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically 

inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and 

comment were precluded.” (Guidelines, § 15088.5, subd. (a).)

“ ‘ “[T]he final EIR will almost always contain information not included

in the draft EIR” given the CEQA statutory requirements of circulation of the

draft EIR, public comment, and response to these comments prior to

certification of the final EIR. . . . “[R]ecirculation was intended to be an

exception, [not] the general rule.” ’ ” (Southwest Regional Council of

Carpenters v. City of Los Angeles (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1154, 1184.)

While the lead agency is not required to make an express finding regarding

recirculation of an EIR, the decision not to recirculate must be supported by

substantial evidence in the record. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. 

Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1133 (Laurel 

Heights II); Guidelines, § 150885, subd. (e).) We presume the lead agency’s

decision is correct. Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that no substantial

evidence supports the agency’s determination that the new information

disclosed in the final EIR was not significant new information. (Western

Placer Citizens for an Agricultural and Rural Environment v. County of

Placer (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 890, 903.) We resolve reasonable doubts in

favor of the lead agency’s decision. (Laurel Heights II, at p. 1135.)

3. Recirculation was not Required

As stated above, new information is generally significant for 

recirculation purposes only if “ ‘as a result of the additional information “the

EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity

to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or
36

a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect.” ’ ” (East Oakland Stadium

Alliance, supra, 89 Cal.App.5th at p. 1266.) The bulk of the examples of 

“significant new information” in the Guidelines similarly involve new 

significant impacts, a substantial increase in severity of an environmental 

impact, or a failure to adopt a new alternative or mitigation measure that 

would lessen significant environmental impacts. (Guidelines, § 15088.5, 

subd. (a).) Since Caltrans’s decision not to advance a retrofit alternative 

does not fall within any of these categories, Friends are left with the 

argument that, due to its failure to analyze a retrofit alternative, “[t]he draft 

EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in 

nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.” 

(Guidelines, § 15088.5, subd. (a)(4).) Citing Sutter Sensible Planning, Inc. 

v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 813 (Sutter) and suggesting 

we examine for ourselves the many changes made from the DEIR/ARR to 

the FEIR/Addendum, Friends claim that the DEIR’s retrofit discussion 

amounted to “conclusory statement[s] ‘unsupported by empirical or 

experimental data, scientific authorities, or explanatory information of 

any kind.’ ” (Id. at p. 820.) This is a hard mountain to climb, and Friends 

fail to reach the summit.

Our examination of the discussion of a possible retrofit alternative in 

the DEIR/ARR discloses: many elements of the existing bridge are 

vulnerable to seismic failure; virtually each major structural element of 

the bridge would require reinforcement, replacement, or refurbishing; a 

retrofit would be unpredictable; a significant support structure would be 

needed under the bridge during the restoration process; a retrofit would 

have greater environmental impacts; a support structure would be difficult 

to remove within the limited allowable in-water work period mandated by 
37

federal law and would require a creek water diversion with its attendant 

impacts12; a temporary bridge and three-year construction period would be 

required; retrofit would enlarge several of the bridge elements; necessary 

protective rails would narrow the lanes, which would not comply with 

current safety standards; and a retrofit would not include improvements 

for multimodal connectivity.

According to the FEIR/Addendum’s retrofit discussion: many 

elements of the existing bridge are vulnerable to seismic failure; virtually 

each major structural element of the bridge would require reinforcement, 

replacement, or refurbishing; although several different options exist for 

retrofitting both the superstructure and the substructure, all retrofit 

approaches would “require a similar level of effort and would result in similar 

environmental impacts”; a retrofit would be unpredictable; a significant 

support structure would be needed under the bridge during the restoration 

process; a retrofit is not a prudent use of resources due to the relative 

lifespan of the bridge13; a temporary bridge and three-year construction 

timeframe would be required; a retrofit would have greater environmental 

impacts; required protective rails would narrow the lanes, which would 

not comply with current safety standards; and a retrofit would not include 

improvements for multimodal connectivity. 

As is readily apparent, while the FEIR/Addendum provided some 

additional information and analysis regarding a retrofit, their discussion 

12 While this statement was not included in the FEIR, the Addendum 

makes clear that its deletion did not change the EIR’s conclusions regarding 

creek diversion.

13 The limited lifespan of the bridge and the fact that a retrofit would 

be more costly were discussed throughout the environmental review process

and thus were not new information.
38

of the retrofit alternative was not significantly different from that in the 

DEIR/ARR, and they reached the same conclusions. Any additional 

information/analyses merely clarified, amplified, or made insignificant 

modifications to an otherwise adequate EIR. (Guidelines, § 15088.5.) The 

myriad claims asserted by Friends do not convince us otherwise. 

For example, Friends contend that Caltrans, for the first time, tied 

the corrosion of the truss to the infeasibility of a retrofit in the FEIR. But 

Caltrans highlighted the corrosion of the bridge truss from the first scoping 

meeting in March 2015 as well as in the August 2015 retrofit feasibility 

memorandum. The later corrosion study cited in the FEIR merely confirmed 

Caltrans’s initial analysis based on visual inspection through the use of 

ultrasonic testing. 

Friends also argue that the FEIR relied on the “speculative assertion” 

that the steel truss might collapse if hit by a vehicle to explain the need for a 

new safety barrier, which would make a retrofit problematic. But the fact 

that the bridge truss was “fracture critical” due to its lack of redundancy was 

discussed as early as 2014 in a bridge inspection report. And the August 

2015 retrofit feasibility memorandum noted that the steel railing, at only 

several inches wide, “is completely ineffective against today’s vehicular 

impact loading requirements,” and that replacement of the bridge safety rail 

with a rail meeting current safety standards would result in 10-foot lanes and 

no shoulders, rendering the retrofitted bridge functionally obsolete. That 

new protective railings would be required was then discussed at the October 

2015 scoping meeting, in the March 2017 seismic evaluation, in the AAR, and 

in the DEIR. Based on the known facts regarding the existing bridge and a 

comparison with current safety standards, this was a reasonable 

(nonspeculative) assumption.
39

Next, Friends again point to Caltrans’s failure to fully investigate 

the condition of the bridge’s piles as evidence of the inadequacy of its 

technical analysis of the retrofit alternative. But as we have already 

determined, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the actual 

condition of the piles was unknowable. Friends also highlight the statement 

in the Addendum that a retrofit of the bridge’s substructure could be 

accomplished “by strengthening the existing piers and abutments, or drilling 

new large diameter pilings to strengthen the existing abutments or piers,”

arguing that it “directly contradicted” Caltrans’s representation that it was 

impossible to determine the condition of the existing foundation. This is just 

untrue. The strategies discussed for retrofitting the piers and abutments 

both require new piles (either constructed around the piers or drilled in and 

around the abutments) precisely because the strength of the existing 

foundation is unknown.

Finally, Friends assert that the different strategies for a retrofit 

discussed in the Addendum were critical new information. We disagree. The 

Addendum does discuss various retrofit strategies but states that “retrofit 

approaches that meet the ‘no collapse’ [design] criteria would all require a 

similar level of effort and would result in similar environmental impacts,” 

specifically a three-year construction period, rebuilding, removing, or 

refurbishing many elements of the bridge, construction of a temporary bridge, 

and extensive in-creek work. (Italics added.) Thus, these new retrofit 

variations provide no basis for challenging Caltrans’s decision to remove a 

retrofit alternative from further consideration.14

14 In one paragraph at the end of their recirculation discussion, Friends 

summarily assert that the FEIR includes previously undisclosed impacts to 

essential fish habitat and protected species. They fail to support their 

citations to the record with any argument as to why the identified passages 
40

This case is easily distinguishable from Sutter, supra, 122 Cal.App.3d 

813, cited by Friends. In Sutter, a draft EIR for a proposed tomato paste 

processing plant failed to discuss adequately a number of significant project 

impacts related to groundwater levels, traffic, and wastewater disposal. (Id.

at pp. 816–817.) The board of supervisors referred the final EIR back to the 

Planning Department for a “redraft” after several board members deemed it 

inadequate and unlikely to survive judicial review. (Id. at p. 821.) “The 

revised final EIR ‘fundamentally’ reorganized the previous information and 

provided a substantial amount of new information, including additional 

details about the potential effects of the plant on the environment and 

substituting some new data for information which had been repudiated by its 

purported author.” (Laurel Heights II, supra, 6 Cal.4th at pp. 1127–1128 

[explaining Sutter].) 

The Sutter court “determined that recirculation for public comment 

would be an appropriate procedure to follow in the situation where 

‘significant new information’ is added to an EIR after the close of the public 

comment period, but prior to certification.” (Laurel Heights II, supra, 6

Cal.4th at p. 1128.) In doing so, the appellate court noted the importance 

under CEQA of public comments and agency statements in response to 

comments, stating: “ [T]he requirement of a detailed statement helps 

[e]nsure the integrity of the process of decision by precluding stubborn 

problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug. A conclusory 

statement ‘unsupported by empirical or experimental data, scientific 

authorities, or explanatory information of any kind’ not only fails to 

require recirculation and have therefore waived this claim. (Friends of the 

Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 877.) 

Regardless, our review of the record shows no basis for recirculation on these 

grounds. 
41

crystallize issues [citation] but ‘affords no basis for a comparison of the 

problems involved with the proposed project and the difficulties involved in 

the alternatives.’ ” (Sutter, supra, 122 Cal.App.3d at p. 820.) Thereafter, our 

Supreme Court cited Sutter as a case in which the “draft EIR [was] 

fundamentally and basically inadequate in many respects.” (Laurel Heights

II, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1131.) Thus, Sutter was the type of proceeding 

where recirculation was required because “the draft EIR was so 

fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that public 

comment on the draft was in effect meaningless.” (Id. at pp. 1130–1131.)

Here, in contrast, Friends have resoundingly failed to establish that the 

DEIR/ARR consisted of “conclusory statement[s] ‘unsupported by empirical 

or experimental data, scientific authorities, or explanatory information of 

any kind’ ” (Sutter, supra, 122 Cal.App.3d at p. 820) or was 

“fundamentally and basically inadequate” (Laurel Heights II, supra, 6

Cal.4th at p. 1131). Nor do the FEIR/Addendum include significant new 

information as defined by CEQA. Thus, recirculation was not required. 

We truly appreciate the attachment many members of the 

community have to this historic bridge. However, safety and accessibility 

are valid (and in this instance countervailing) governmental concerns.

Our independent review of the record reveals that Caltrans consistently 

engaged and included the public in consideration of a retrofit option

throughout the environmental review process. And we have concluded that 

substantial evidence supports Caltrans’s decision to remove a retrofit option 

from further environmental review. Nothing more was required.
42

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. In the interests of justice, the parties shall 

bear their own costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
43

BOWEN, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUMES, P. J.

MARGULIES, J.

A163405N

 Judge of the Contra Costa County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief 

Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.