San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus
Citation | 27 Cal.App.4th 713,32 Cal.Rptr.2d 704 |
Decision Date | 12 August 1994 |
Docket Number | No. F019841,F019841 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | SAN JOAQUIN RAPTOR/WILDLIFE RESCUE CENTER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS et al., Defendants and Respondents; ARAMBEL AND ROSE DEVELOPMENT, INC., Real Party in Interest and Respondent. |
Roger Beers and Kathryn Lodato, San Francisco, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Michael H. Krausnick, County Counsel, and E. Vernon Seeley, Asst. County Counsel, for defendants and respondents.
Washburn, Briscoe & McCarthy, Sandi L. Nichols and Anne E. Mudge, San Francisco, for real party in interest and respondent.
Appellants San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center and John Mataka appeal from the judgment entered denying their complaint and petition for writ of mandate challenging the approval by respondent County of Stanislaus (County) of a proposal by respondent Arambel and Rose Development, Inc. (Arambel), to build a residential development near the existing community of Grayson, California. Appellants contend the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared in connection with the project did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
We will reverse. In so doing, we ratify the long-acknowledged purpose of an EIR, and the roles of a county board of supervisors and a reviewing court relative to CEQA. The purpose of an EIR is to provide enough information about a project so that the board of supervisors can make an informed decision thereon. Our role here, as a reviewing court, is not to decide whether the board acted wisely or unwisely, but simply to determine whether the EIR contained sufficient information about a proposed project, the site and surrounding area and the projected environmental impacts arising as a result of the proposed project or activity to allow for an informed decision by the County Board of Supervisors (Board). (Cf. Marin Mun. Water Dist. v. KG Land California Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1652, 1666, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 767.) As we shall explain, in this case, it did not.
In June of 1989, Arambel applied for an amendment of the general plan, rezoning and approval of a tentative parcel map to permit construction of "Grayson Park Unit 3," a residential development consisting of 633 single-family homes, a commercial area and a park (the development project). A small "District Office Building and Meeting Hall for the Grayson Community Service District" was later added. The development project is proposed to be located on 154.24 acres contained within Stanislaus County, north of the unincorporated community of Grayson (site). "[T]he site is strategically located to serve Bay Area commuters."
The development project was originally circulated as a mitigated negative declaration. County was designated lead agency. After preparation and review of an expanded initial study, the County required preparation of an EIR. On December 8, 1989, the County published notice of preparation of an EIR.
A draft EIR was completed and circulated for comment (DEIR). On September 6, 1990, the County Planning Commission (Commission) held a public hearing to "solicit comments on the draft EIR."
The final EIR was completed in October 1990 (FEIR). The FEIR consists of the DEIR, written comments to the DEIR and responses to these written comments. The content of the FEIR will be discussed as necessary in the body of this opinion.
The Commission prepared a staff report dated November 29, 1990, addressing Arambel's application. In relevant part, the staff report recommended the development project be approved, the FEIR be certified as "complete and adequate under CEQA," a "finding of overriding considerations to the unmitigated impacts of the project" on air quality and conversion of agricultural land be made and that it be found that "there is evidence on the record to support the required general plan findings and approve the general plan change" and rezoning.
The Commission held "a duly advertised public hearing on November 29, 1990." After comments were received, the Commission voted to follow the recommendations contained in the staff report.
On December 11, 1990, the Board held a public hearing on the development project. After "hearing testimony regarding this application," the Board approved the recommendations On December 18, 1990, the Board issued its findings of fact and statement of decision. In relevant part, the Board made 15 findings, which will be discussed as necessary in the body of this opinion. The Board approved the development project subject to the mitigation measures included in the findings. It certified the FEIR as "complete and adequate," adopted a statement of overriding considerations for the unavoidable environmental impacts of the project, and approved an amendment of the general plan, rezone application and tentative subdivision map. Notice of determination was filed December 19, 1990. 1
and findings as set forth in the staff report, voted in favor of the tentative map approval, general plan amendment and rezoning and directed counsel to prepare appropriate findings.
Appellants filed a petition and complaint on January 18, 1991. Demurrers to the complaint were sustained without leave to amend by the trial court. On appeal, this court reversed.
Appellants filed a second amended complaint and petition for writ of mandate. Appellants alleged the FEIR violated CEQA for many reasons, including an inadequate project description, inaccurate description of the site and the surrounding area, inadequate evaluation of project impacts, inadequate analysis of alternatives and inadequate response to comments on the DEIR. Appellants also alleged approval of the development project was inconsistent with the County's general plan. On March 5, 1993, the trial court filed a tentative decision denying the writ and the complaint. Judgment was thereafter entered. This appeal followed.
CEQA (Pub.Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. and Cal.Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq. 2 ) was enacted in 1970, one year after Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.). (Remy et al., Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (7th ed. 1993) p. 1 [hereafter Guide to CEQA].) "CEQA applies to all 'governmental agencies at all levels' in California, including 'local agencies,' 'regional agencies,' and 'state agencies, boards, and commissions.' " (Id. at p. 2.) In its seminal case, Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d 376, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278, the Supreme Court provided a concise overview of CEQA:
The court continued, explaining the important purposes served by preparation of an EIR:
(47 Cal.3d at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
County of Amador v. Water Agency
...(Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 392-393, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 704; Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 351, 369, 7 Cal.Rp......
-
Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus
...of water that the mine will need." (118 Cal.App.3d at p. 829, 173 Cal.Rptr. 602.) In San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 704, this court relied in part on Santiago to conclude that an EIR for a 900-home residential deve......
-
Planning and Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources
...article 18, subdivision (b). Two cases from Stanislaus County are instructive. In San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 704, the Court of Appeal the EIR legally inadequate because it did not include a sufficient descripti......
-
Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. Cdf
...will construe the term more broadly to provide greater protection to the environment (San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 720, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 704), even if that protection comes in the form of a subsequently filed amendment or Havin......
-
Addressing the Problem: The Judicial Branches
...it, the larger project could not proceed. For example, in San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 713, the court concluded the description of a residential development project in an EIR was inadequate because it failed to include expansion o......