Opponents of a 5,000-unit subdivision and golf resort in the western foothills of Stanislaus County continued their courtroom winning streak when Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Donald Shaver ruled a supplemental environmental impact report was inadequate.
In a July decision, Shaver said the county "failed to adequately evaluate the environmental impacts and the cumulative impacts, failed to accurately describe one portion of the project and failed to recirculate the SEIR."
In the first round of litigation over the Diablo Grande project, the Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled that the county's EIR had improperly deferred analysis of water supply issues. The court in that case, Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus, (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182, said the county could not make an informed decision on the development when the EIR only addressed the first five years of water supply for a 25-year project. Because the area does not contain adequate on-site water, project proponents have pursued a water transfer from the valley floor.
After that decision, now known as Diablo Grande I, the county issued a supplemental EIR. But judge Shaver punched holes in that document too. "Nowhere in the report does it consider or evaluate the impact, alternatives or mitigation of directing 13,000 acre feet per year of valley or outside water to the new community," Shaver wrote.
Shaver said the county misinterpreted Diablo Grande I by discussing in the SEIR a variety of potential water sources, three of which he called "too speculative."
"The purposes of CEQA would be ill-served if the act sanctioned a generalized discussion of a shotgun list of options which leaves the reader to wonder which might or might not be used," Shaver wrote.
The Cases:
Protect Our Water v. County of Stanislaus, Superior Court Case No. 181472, and California Farm Bureau Federation v. County of Stanislaus, Superior Court Case No. 181448.
The Lawyers:
For Protect Our Water: Rose Zoia, Brandt-Hawley & Zoia, (707) 938-3908.
For Stanislaus County: E. Vernon Seeley, assistant county counsel, (209) 525-6376.
The City of Anaheim's attempts to bar a proposed adult cabaret from an industrial area were unconstitutional and the city must approve the business's permits, the Fourth District Court of Appeals has ruled.
According to the unanimous appellate court decision, three city actions failed constitutional muster: an attempt to prevent "secondary effects" of an adult business, a retroactive amendment to the zoning ordinance, and denial of the strip club to protect the city's image. Presiding Justice David Si...
The Novato Fire Protection District detached the former Hamilton Air Force Base in 1977, but last month the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the detachment was an illegal attempt to tax the federal government. The court said the fire district is obliged to serve the former base, now occupied by the Navy, the Coast Guard, other federal agencies and even some private entities.
The unanimous three-judge appeals court upheld Northern California District Judge Fern Smith's ruling that the detachme...
A city has an obligation to complete an environmental impact report and may not just continually reject an EIR prepared by a developer's consultant, the Fourth District Court of Appeals has ruled.
The court also ruled that foot-dragging on an EIR by the City of Redlands gives the developer of a proposed housing complex a right to seek damages under the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983.
The City of Redlands three times rejected a proposed draft EIR prepared by consultants of a ho...
A proposed lot line adjustment constitutes a development under the Coastal Act of 1976, even though the proposal would not result in more parcels, the Second District Court of Appeals has ruled. The decision means the Coastal Commission has jurisdiction over the proposed lot line adjustment.
The unanimous three-judge appellate panel upheld the decision of Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David Yaffe, who compared a lot line adjustment to a lot split. "In either case, the reconfigurat...
Claims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit.
The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law "plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court."
A state appellate court has upheld the California Coastal Commission's denial of a development permit for a small mixed-use project in Morro Bay.
The court rejected developer Dan Reddell's arguments that the commission violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that its decision was a regulatory taking of property. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that substantial evidence supported the commission's finding that Reddell's project was inconsistent with Morro Bay's local coastal plan (LCP).
A state appellate court has thrown out an Inyo County general plan amendment that the county argued was nothing more than a clarification of a longstanding policy.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, concluded that the amendment was more than a mere clarification and that the county should have completed an environmental impact report before approving the amendment.
A City of West Hollywood moratorium on new multi-family housing development has been declared invalid by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the city had not made required findings for the moratorium.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set back a plan to develop the country's largest solid waste landfill near Joshua Tree National Park. The court ruled that the environmental analysis for the project was inadequate and that the Bureau of Land Management undervalued land it would provide to the landfill developer.
A state appellate court has struck down a California Environmental Quality Act exemption for an air district rule permitting new power plants to offset emissions by paving roads. The court found that the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District did not have adequate evidence to support its finding that the rule could not have a negative impact on the environment.
A developer is not entitled to reimbursement or damages from a consultant hired by a local government to complete an environmental impact report, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. Even when the consultant fails to complete an EIR in a timely manner, the consultant owes no contractual duty to the developer that paid for the consultant, the court concluded.
In the first decision of its kind, a divided Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel has declared that the City of Goleta's mobile home rent control ordinance constitutes a regulatory taking.
