Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY WASTEWATER AUTHORITY, Plaintiff and Appellant v. CITY OF DANA POINT, Defendant and Respondent and MAKAR PROPERTIES, LLC, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

Pays/Territoire
États-Unis d'Amérique
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Jui 30, 2011
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District
Juge
BEDSWORTH, RYLAARSDAM and MOORE.
Numéro de référence
No. G044059
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Agriculture et développement rural, Environnement gén.
Résumé
The case arises out of a plan to develop nine acres adjacent to a sewage treatment plant in the City of Dana Point. The City approved designations and entitlements to increase residential density and permit mixed use development. The South Orange County Water District objected because the new residents would be exposed to obnoxious odors and noise from its existing sewage treatment plant. The court stressed that the District’s real concern was to protect itself from nuisance complaints by potential neighbors, while forcing the developer to pay millions for the cost of improvements to the plant in the guise of mitigation. The Court upheld the City’s use of a mitigated negative declaration and rejected the District’s claim that an EIR was required, based largely on the Baird principle that CEQA protects the environment from projects, not vice versa. The Court found that the District cited no case law and no statutory authority to extend the EIR requirement to situations where the environment has an effect on a project. In so ruling, the Court suggested that CEQA Guideline Section 15126.2, which requires an EIR to analyze any significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people to the area affected by a project, may be inconsistent with the CEQA statute to the extent it is used as authority to require analysis of impacts of the existing environment on the project. Generally, the Court noted that the Legislature did not enact CEQA to protect people from the existing environment, as that function is fulfilled by a variety of other statutes and regulations, including substantive restrictions on development in or near hazardous wastes sites, earthquake faults, and floodways.
Texte intégral
COU-157307.pdf