A Superior Court ruling invalidating the environmental impact report for El Dorado County's general plan is likely to reopen debate over the amount of growth allowed in the county and puts into question the future of several large developments. In a 142-page ruling, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Cecily Bond determined that the EIR violated the California Environmental Quality Act in 23 different ways. The judge found the county did not adequately address, among other things, impacts on water sources or traffic congestion. Furthermore, the EIR "failed to serve as an ‘environmental alarm bell' or a ‘document of accountability,' which the Supreme Court has stated are two of the essential functions of CEQA," Bond wrote. The ruling means the county will not approve discretionary projects during the near future, County Counsel Lou Green said. In a few months, the county hopes to receive a court order outlining how to deal with pending projects while completing the EIR work and adopting another general plan, he said. "In the meantime, there is no prohibition against issuing building permits because there is no finding of consistency (with the general plan) required for that," Green added. Revising the EIR to satisfy the ruling will take six to nine months, Planning Director Conrad Montgomery estimated. However, with two new members taking seats in January, the Board of Supervisors appears to have a slower-growth attitude, which could mean a much longer debate over development in general lies ahead. Attorney Stephan Volker — who represented a group of 18 homeowner groups, environmental organizations and government agencies — contended the county implemented a bait-and-switch scheme by not revising a 1993 EIR after making major changes to the proposed general plan in 1995. "The public was fundamentally misled into thinking this document (the general plan) would reduce environmental impacts and result in moderate or slow population growth," Volker said. "Now it's obvious the plan is void and the county will have to go back to the drawing board." County officials contended the 1996 general plan allowed less construction than the previous general plan, even though the new plan projected population growth from 150,000 to 370,000 by 2015. Judge Bond said the EIR should have considered the impacts of not revising the general plan and of a realistic slow-growth alternative. The judge, however, rejected challenges to policies in the general plan and denied a claim that the document violated "the public trust." Still, the decision requires El Dorado County to set aside the general plan, said Jim Moose, a Sacramento CEQA attorney for the county. "It's a very tough decision. It's a very strict interpretation of CEQA," Moose said. Volker vowed to continue fighting developments that would "prejudice future planning options." Large projects should go on hold until the county adopts an adequate general plan, he said. Planning Director Montgomery seemed to agree. "What we are looking at is a very wide-ranging moratorium on discretionary projects,'' he said. The judge's decision placed in limbo for an unknown period five large western county projects totaling about 5,200 homes, plus retail, office, and industrial development, according to Montgomery. Beginning in 1989, the county spent 6 1/2 years and $4 million revising its general plan. A consultant, Sedway Cooke Associates, finished a draft plan in 1992, but the Board of Supervisors then assigned county planners to work on the plan. The staff completed another draft plan in 1994, only to have a new, pro-growth board further alter the document before adopting it in 1996. The coalition represented by Volker then filed suit. Meanwhile, an initiative that growth-wary El Dorado voters approved last November has received a legal challenge. Measure Y was intended to force builders to pay for roads serving new subdivisions. The developers' lawsuit, filed January 29 in El Dorado Superior Court, takes issue with portions of Measure Y but does not contest the underlying theme that developers should pay for their traffic impacts, said attorney Michael Zischke, of San Francisco. Instead, builders contend the initiative fails to provide required exceptions for affordable housing projects, illegally removes road-spending from the Board of Supervisors' purview, and calls for a new election in 10 years with no authority to do so, Zischke said. Also, the measure conflicts with El Dorado County general plan policies regarding road funding and acceptable levels of service, Zischke said. Judge Bond did not throw out the general plan nor order the county to amend it, he noted. Green, the county counsel, intends to put the Measure Y lawsuit on the back burner because the initiative deals with standards for approving projects under the general plan — whose status now is uncertain. Contacts: Stephan Volker, attorney, Brecher & Volker, (510) 496-0600. Conrad Montgomery, El Dorado County planning director, (530) 621-5355. Lou Green, El Dorado County counsel, (530) 621-5770. Michael Zischke, attorney, Landels Ripley & Diamond, (415) 512-8700.