California Court of Appeal

In plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandate seeking to set aside a city's certification of an EIR and related actions approving a project to build 560 residential units on a 200-acre sit long used for agricultural purposes located in an unincorporated area, trial court's denial of the petition is affirmed where: 1) the EIR adequately analyzed the project's impacts on the basin and the water district's total water supplies; 2) substantial evidence shows that mitigation measures to reduce the project's direct and cumulative impacts on long-term agricultural uses in the area were not economically feasible; 3) plaintiffs' claim that the city failed to proceed in a manner required by law, because it limited the EIR's analysis of project alternatives to economically infeasible ones and rejected alternatives if they did not fully mitigate significant agricultural impacts, is rejected; and 4) plaintiffs' claim that the findings the city made in adopting the statement of overriding considerations are not supported by substantial evidence is rejected.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/22/2010
• Published 11/22/2010

Judges

• King

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Robert C. Goodman, Joseph S. Aklufi