We usually don't cover decisions under California's Environmental Quality Act. You could spend your entire legal career doing these kind of cases, and there are other forums which ably follow CEQA.
But we had to make a mention of the California Court of Appeal's recent opinion in Preserve Poway v. City of Poway, No. D066635 (Mar. 9, 2016), which concluded that a property owner's transformation of his land from a horse boarding facility to 12 residences did not implicate CEQA, because it shows just how far these "environmental" arguments can go.
The owner of the "Stock Farm," a horse boarding facility, wanted to close it. In its place? Twelve homes on one-acre lots. This is Poway, ("The City in the Country"), so the homes would have "enough room for horses." Apparently, there is no shortage of horse boarding facilities in the area. All of this was permissible under existing zoning. The city council OK'd the project, with no EIS under CEQA. There was no evidence the residential project "violates zoning or any other land use regulations." No evidence the project would impact traffic, noise, or air pollution. No erosion or drainage problems. Not even a reduction in the horse population, thank goodness.
But the neighbors objected: this would change the "community character." As those bumper stickers in Hawaii proclaim, "keep the country country." The trial court agreed, and ordered the preparation of an EIS.
The court of appeal saw it differently, however:
The real issue in this case is not what is proposed to be going in (homes with private horse boarding), but what is coming out (the Stock Farm, public horse boarding). Project opponents essentially contend that because Rogers, a private property owner, obtained a conditional use permit to operate horse stables they have enjoyed using for 20 years, the public has a right under CEQA to prevent Rogers from making some other lawful use of his land.
Slip op. at 3.
The court acknowledged that the closing of the Stock Farm may impact Poway residents (especially the members of the Poway Valley Riders Association, "whose 12-acre rodeo, polo, and other grounds are across the street from the Stock Farm" slip op. at 2), and whose members formed the plaintiff organization:
As one Project opponent explained, "We need to keep the stables . . . to enable any young people to continue to be able to ride. It gives them something wholesome and positive to do, instead of sitting in front of a computer or video game, or getting into trouble." Another resident explained that boarding his horse at the Stock Farm taught his daughter "valuable life lessons, kept her out of trouble, allowed her to excel in school and life, [and] brought our family closer together." Several residents voiced concerns that closing the Stock Farm would damage Poway's identity as the "City in the Country."
Slip op. at 3. But those impacts were "psychological and social -- not environmental." The court concluded, "Whether the Project should be approved is a political and policy decision entrusted to Poway's elected officials. It is not an environmental issue for courts under CEQA. Therefore, we reverse the portions of the judgment regarding community character." Slip op. at 4.
And the "character" of the area? A zoom out on the Google Map shows that homes are pretty much in character for the area, at least in our view.
We're not sure what to call the objectors here, since they aren't really NIMBY's, but more like MKIIMBY's (Must Keep It In My Back Yard).
But frankly, we're open to suggestions, because "MKIIMBY" just doesn't sing.
More analysis of the decision here, from Abbott & Kindermann's Land Use Blog.
Preserve Poway v. City of Poway, No. D066635 (Cal. App. Mar. 9, 2016)
