SACRAMENTO — A state appeals court recently declined to revive an environmental group's challenge to a planned community in Sacramento County.
In its 20-page opinion filed in late January and certified for publication on March 2, a California Third District Court of Appeal three-judge panel affirmed a lower court's ruling that denied a challenge to Cordova Hills by two environmental groups. The lower court upheld the county's certification of the final Environmental Impact Report EIR and approval of the Cordova Hills project.
California Third District Court of Appeal Justice Vance W. Raye wrote the opinion in which Justice Cole Blease and Justice Ronald B. Robie concurred.
The case stems from approval by Sacramento County and its board of supervisors of Cordova Hills, a large master planned community that includes residential and commercial ventures, according to the background portion of the opinion. One of those ventures was to be a university.
Environmental Council of Sacramento and the Sierra Club challenged the project, which was denied by a lower court. The Environmental Council appealed, arguing the EIR had not been sufficient.
"At the heart of Environmental Council's appeal is the contention that the university is not likely to be built and since the EIR assumes the buildout of a university it is deficient in failing to analyze the project without a university," the opinion said.
The lower court found that the Cordova Hills project description adequate under the state's Environmental Quality Act and that the EIR had not addressed whether a university be built, the opinion said.
"In addition, the court held the EIR adequately disclosed and analyzed the Project's environmental impacts associated with air quality, traffic, and climate change," the opinion continued. "Nor was the county required to phase the Project as a mitigation measure and that the record did not support phasing the Project. Finally, the court determined Environmental Council failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to whether the EIR defers mitigation of climate change impacts by improperly treating the design of the Project as a mitigation measure."
The appeals court upheld all portions of the lower court's ruling.