California Court of Appeal

In plaintiff-environmental society's challenge to defendant-county's approval of a congregate care construction project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and county's General Plan claiming the project would harm two rare plants, judgment in favor of defendant-county is reversed where: 1) the impact fee allowed approval of projects within the relevant environmentally fragile area, but did not eliminate the need to evaluate and address the impacts on plants of a particular project in the area; 2) there was substantial evidence in the record to raise a fair argument that the project may have significant environmental impacts on one or more endangered plant species; and 3) the mitigated negative declaration (MND) should not have been certified and an environmental impact report (EIR) was required for this project.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/28/2009
• Published 01/28/2009

Judges

• MORRISON, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Law Offices of Michael W. Graf;  Law Office of J. William Yeates, Sacramento;  Kenyon Yeates, LLP, Charity Kenyon, J. William Yeates, Jason R. Flanders, Keith G. Wagner, Sacramento;  Lippe Gaffney Wagner, LLP, and Keith G. Wagner, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Louis B. Green, County Counsel, Paula F. Frantz, Deputy County Counsel;  Scharf, Brady & Vinding, Michael V. Brady and Blair W. Will;  Diepenbrock Harrison and Michael V. Brady for Defendants and Respondents., Remy, Thomas, Moose & Manley, LLP, Sacramento, Andrea K. Leisy and Laura M. Harris, for Real Parties In Interest and Respondents.