California Court of Appeal

Judgment in favor of defendants in an action challenging the approval by defendant-county of a master-planned community project is: 1) affirmed in part, where the project is not inconsistent with the land use element, since the agricultural use designation was properly changed by amendment, thereby avoiding an inconsistency, and the issues regarding the traffic policy were not exhausted during the administrative process; 2) affirmed in part, where the CEQA claims involving wastewater disposal lack merit because the amount and location of wastewater use and disposal and the hydrogeology of the site ultimately chosen for the wastewater treatment plant were addressed in sufficient detail during the environmental review process; but 3) reversed in part as to the CEQA claims involving air quality, where: (a) the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was inadequate because it failed to include an analysis that correlated the project's emission of air pollutants to its impact on human health; (b) the mitigation measures for the project's long-term air quality impacts violate CEQA because they are vague, unenforceable and lack specific performance criteria; and (c) the statement that the air quality mitigation provisions will substantially reduce air quality impacts is unexplained and unsupported.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/27/2014
• Published 05/27/2014

Judges

• FRANSON

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel