"This Is A Case Where CEQA Worked"

Here's how the California Court of Appeal, Third District began today's opinion in a case involving the California Environmental Quality Act:

This is a case where CEQA worked. The City of Rocklin (the City) in 2007 approved a residential development project for an undeveloped area of the City known as Clover Valley. The approval culminated more than 10 years of planning and environmental review for the site's development. Since 1981, zoning authorized nearly 1,000 homes for the site. The site's owners applied to develop a project for that size in 1991, and environmental review began in earnest in 1995. As a result of environmental concerns analyzed since then, the approved project is roughly half the size it could have been. The amount of open space has increased by a factor of five. The project owners have already paid millions of dollars to the City to construct needed infrastructure. The approved project has been redesigned to protect numerous environmental resources on the site, particularly prehistoric Native American artifacts.

Plaintiffs Clover Valley Foundation, the Sierra Club, and the Town of Loomis, however, claim the City has still failed to conduct legally sufficient environmental review. They filed separate petitions for writs of mandate challenging the City‟s project approval, claiming the City failed to comply with CEQA and the state Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, § 65000 et seq.).

The trial court denied their petitions, and plaintiffs now appeal those judgments. Plaintiffs argue the City abused its discretion in violation of CEQA by certifying an environmental impact report (EIR) they assert failed on many fronts. It allegedly failed to: describe the sites' cultural resources, consider a sewer pipeline's growth-inducing effects, consider all oak trees that will be removed, protect a listed species, analyze view and traffic impacts, and document an adequate water supply. Plaintiffs also claim the project, by including road construction within a 50-foot buffer zone, is not consistent with the City's general plan.

We disagree with each of plaintiffs‟ claims and affirm the trial court‟s judgments. The EIR complies with all of CEQA's procedural demands, and its factual conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. All of the impacts raised by plaintiffs were sufficiently described and adequately mitigated in the EIR. In addition, the City did not abuse its discretion in concluding the project was consistent with the City's general plan.

Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin, No. C061808 (July 8, 2011), slip op. at 1-2 (footnote omitted).  Read the opinion for the court's seriatim rejection of each of the local "save" group, the Sierra Club, and a neighboring municipality's challenge to the EIR.

While it's good to see a court recognize that enough is enough, its fascinating also to see what the court considers to be an example of where environmental review "worked." Residential zoning approved 30 years ago. An application for development made 20 years ago. Sixteen years of environmental review. Cutting the number of homes 50%. A five-fold increase in open space on the land (read: no homes there). In-lieu payments in the "millions of dollars." Protection of cultural resources. And even after environmental review (indeed, based on it), a challenge that the EIR didn't get it just so.

All so homes that are now likely considerably more expensive than they would have been can come on-line during one of the worst housing markets in recent memory. Excuse us if we're a little skeptical of that being a good definition of "working."

Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin, No. C061808 (Cal Ct App July 8, 2011)