Merced County sued for reducing Castle Airport noise and safety zone to benefit racetrack project
MERCED (March 16, 2007) -- Two local environmental groups filed suit Thursday in Merced County Superior Court against Merced County, the Board of Supervisors and Riverside Motorsports Park, LLC under provisions in the State Aeronautics Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center and Protect Our Water challenged the December 12 Board of Supervisors' decision to override the Castle Airport Land Use Commission and reduce the diameter of the noise/safety restricted zone around the airport sufficiently to permit Riverside Motorsports Park to built its facility nearby.
The two local environmental groups petitioned the court for a writ of mandate to set aside the Dec. 12 override on the basis that it violates the Aeronautics Act and CEQA, to make adequate findings of fact, prepare, circulate and consider legally adequate environmental review for the override, and suspend activity that could result in any change of alteration of the physical environment until the override is legally compliant.
The causes of action for the suit are Merced County's abuse of discretion under the Aeronautics Act and CEQA, including:
· Failure to make fact-specific findings required by the Aeronautics Act;
· Failure to set forth findings sufficient to bridge the analytical gap between the raw evidence and the ultimate Board decision to reduce the size of the airport noise/safety zone;
· Failure to analyze the environmental impacts of the override under CEQA;
· Failure to consider the override a project under CEQA;
· Failure to provide any findings as required by CEQA on a project.
"In a nutshell, the Board could not certify the racetrack environmental impact report without reducing the size of the airport's noise/safety zone," said Lydia Miller, president of the Raptor Center.
"We are represented by the skilled and experienced environmental law firm of Don Mooney and Marsha Burch,"Miller added.
The petition is attached.
For further information contact:
Lydia Miller
San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center
Merced CA 95341
(209) 723-9283
DONALD B. MOONEY
MARSHA BIRCH
Law Offices of Donald B. Mooney
Davis CA 95616
(530) 758-2377
---------------------
The petition:
DONALD B. MOONEY (SBN153721)
MARSHA A. BURCH (SBN 170298)
LAW OFFICES OF DONALD B. MOONEY
Telephone: (530) 758-2377
Facsimile: (530) 758-7169
Attorneys for Petitioners
San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center
and Protect Our Water
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF MERCED
SAN JOAQUIN RAPTOR RESCUE
CENTER; and
PROTECT OUR WATER
Case No.:
Petitioners,
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
v. COUNTY OF MERCED; MERCED COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; AND DOES 1-10
Respondents.
RIVERSIDE MOTORSPORTS .
PARK, LLC and DOES 11-100
Real Parties in Interest.
Code Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5; State Aeronautics Act, Pub. Res. Code
§§ 21676.5 and 21670; and CEQA, Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq.
INTRODUCTION
1. By this action, Petitioners San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center and Protect Our Water (“Petitioners”) challenge the action on December 12, 2007, by the County of Merced and the Merced County Board of Supervisors (“County” or “Respondents”) overruling a finding of inconsistency by the Merced County Airport Land Use Commission (“ALUC”) between the Merced County Airport Land Use Plan and the Riverside Motorsports Park Project (the “Override”). Petitioners allege that these actions violate the Public Utilities Code, specifically the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code §§ 21670 and 21676.5) (the “Act”). Petitioners also allege violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq., as a result of Respondents’ failure to conduct environmental review of the discretionary Override decision. Petitioners seek a determination from this Court that Respondents’ action in overriding the inconsistency determination of the ALUC is invalid and void as contrary to law and/or an abuse of discretion.
PARTIES
2. Petitioner San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center is a non-profit group that works for preserving wildlife habitats and the environment in general in the San Joaquin Valley and Merced County area. To that end, it is involved in efforts to protect the resources of the Valley, including air and water quality, the preservation of agricultural land, and the protection of wildlife and its habitat. The Center also is committed to public education regarding these various issues and ensuring governmental compliance with the law of this state. The Center is composed of persons whose economic, personal, aesthetic, and property interests will be severely injured if the adoption of the project is not set aside pending full compliance with CEQA and all other environmental laws. Center members utilize and enjoy the County's and State's natural resources. The Center brings this petition on behalf of all others similarly situated who are too numerous to be named and brought before this court as petitioners. As a group composed of residents and property owners generally within the San Joaquin Valley and specifically in Merced County, the Center is within the class of persons beneficially interested in, and aggrieved by, the acts of respondents as alleged below. Members of the Center participated in the administrative processes herein, and exhausted its remedies. Accordingly, the Center has standing to sue.
3. SJRRC and its members have a direct and substantial beneficial interest in ensuring that Respondents comply with the laws relating to environmental protection, safety and land use issues. SJRRC is affected by Respondents’ failure to comply with the Act.
4. Petitioner Protect Our Water is an unincorporated association formed in 1998 for the purpose of increasing the awareness, appreciation, and preservation of the environmental resources within the Central Valley region of central California, as well as within other areas of the State of California. POW aims to protect natural resources and the environment and to uphold the integrity of environmental and land use planning and review processes. POW’s membership includes residents and property owners within Merced County and the San Joaquin Valley in general, and as such is within the class of persons beneficially interested in, and aggrieved by, the acts of Respondents as alleged below. POW participated in the administrative processes herein, has exhausted its remedies, and has standing to sue.
5. POW and its members have a direct and substantial beneficial interest in ensuring that Respondents comply with the laws relating to environmental protection, safety and appropriate land use planning. POW is affected by Respondents’ failure to comply with the Act.
6. Respondent Merced County is a political subdivision of the State of California and a body corporate and politic exercising local government power. Merced County is responsible for compliance with the Act.
7. Respondent Merced County Board of Supervisors is a legislative body duly authorized under the California Constitution and the laws of the State of California to act on behalf of the County of Merced. Respondent Merced County Board of Supervisors are responsible for regulating and controlling land use within the County including, but not limited to, compliance with California land use laws, including the Act.
8. Petitioners are unaware of the true names and capacities of Respondents identified as Does 1-10. Petitioners are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Respondents Does 1-10, inclusive, are individuals, entities or agencies with material interests affected by the Override. When the true identities and capacities of these Respondents have been determined, Petitioners will, with leave of Court if necessary, amend this Petition to insert such identities and capacities.
9. Real Party In Interest Riverside Motorsports Park, LLC is a California Limited Liability Company and conducting business in the state of California. RMP is the applicant for and beneficiary of the County’s general plan amendments, zoning changes, and certification of the Riverside Motorsports Project (“Project”), the subject of the ALUC’s inconsistency determination, which was overridden by Respondents.
10. Petitioners are currently unaware of the true names and capacities of Does 11 through 100, inclusive and therefore sue such unnamed Real Parties in Interest by their fictitious names. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereon allege, that fictitiously named Real Parties in Interest have an interest in the subject of this Petition. When the true identities and capacities of Real Parties in Interest have been determined, Petitioners will, with leave of Court if necessary, amend this Petition to include such identities and capacities.
BACKGROUND FACTS
9. The RMP Project is proposed for construction on 1,187 acres of agricultural land located east of the City of Atwater in the County of Merced. Castle Airport (formerly Castle Air Force Base) and the Castle Specific Urban Development Plan area are located immediately southwest of the Project site.
11. The RMP Project is proposed to include the construction of a regional motorsports recreation, entertainment and commercial business facility.
12. The Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of the environmental document for the Project was originally circulated to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research on July 22, 2003. Following release of the NOP, revisions to the Project description were identified by RMP that required the NOP’s recirculation. The NOP was recirculated on March 14, 2005 for a 30-day comment period.
13. On October 1, 2003, the ALUC made a determination that the Project is inconsistent with the Merced County Airport Land Use Plan.
14. On December 12, 2006, the Merced County Board of Supervisors, relying upon Public Utilities Code section 21676(b), overrode the ALUC’s inconsistency determination, approving Resolution 2006-189. Resolution 2006-189 is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof by this reference.
15. Resolution 2006-189 includes conclusory findings regarding noise impacts related to the Override, but the Resolution does not include any specific findings of fact related to safety. The findings do not include any reference to environmental review for the Override, nor do they include findings required by CEQA.
16. On December 12, 2006, the same date Resolution 2006-189 was adopted by Respondents, Respondents certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the RMP Project.
17. On December 19, 2006, the Board of Supervisors approved the General Plan Amendment to expand the existing Castle Specific Urban Development Plan boundaries to include the Project site; approve the amendment to the Circulation Chapter of the General Plan; approve the amendment to the Merced County Zoning Code to change the existing zoning designations on the Project site from General Agriculture (A-1) and Exclusive Agriculture (A-2) to Planned Development (PD); remove the Project site from the Agricultural Preserve Area; and approve the Master Plan.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18. This Court has jurisdiction over the alleged violations of the Act contained in this Petition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1904.5. With respect to the CEQA cause of action, this Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to sections 1085 and 187 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and section 21168.5 of the California Public Resources Code. Petitioners believe that this action is properly brought as a petition for writ of mandate under those provisions. However, should this Court conclude that this action cannot be properly be brought as a petition for a writ of mandate, petitioners request that this Petition be construed as a petition for writ of administrative mandamus (for which jurisdiction would lie pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1094.5 and 187, and Public Resources Code section 21168), or for other appropriate extraordinary relief.
19. Venue for this action properly lies in the Superior Court for the State of California in and for the County of Merced pursuant to section 394 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
AND INADEQUACY OF REMEDY
20. Petitioners have performed any and all conditions precedent to filing the instant action and have exhausted any and all available administrative remedies to the extent required by law. Petitioners timely submitted written comments on the Override.
21. Petitioners have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the course of ordinary law unless this Court grants the requested writ of mandate to require Respondents to set aside their Override. In the absence of such remedy, Respondents’ approvals will remain in effect in violation of State law.
22. This action has been brought within 90 days of the Override as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6.
STANDING
23. Petitioners have standing to assert the claims raised in this Petition because Petitioners and their members’ environmental interests are directly and adversely affected by the County’s Override.
ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ACTIONS
24. Petitioners bring this action on the basis, among others, of Government Code section 800, which awards Petitioners’ attorneys’ fees in actions to overturn agency decisions that are arbitrary and capricious, such as the decisions here in question.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Abuse of Discretion)
Violations the State Aeronautics Act
Public Utilities Code section 21001, et seq.
25. Petitioners reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 24, inclusive, of this Petition, as if fully set forth below.
26. Respondents committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion and failed to proceed in a manner required by law by failing to make fact-specific findings as required by the Act, and failed to set forth findings sufficient to bridge the analytical gap between the raw evidence and the ultimate decision.
27. Respondents violated the Act in failing to make findings sufficient under Public Utilities Code section 21676(b) and as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.
28. Respondent’s failure to comply with the requirements of the Act renders the Override inadequate as a matter of law and requires that Respondent’s decision be set aside.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Abuse of Discretion)
Violation of CEQA, Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.
29. Petitioner realleges and incorporates herein, as if set forth in full, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 28 of this petition and further allege as follows:
30. Respondents have abused their discretion and failed to act in the manner required under CEQA with respect to the Override because they have failed to analyze its environmental impacts, and failed to make any determination at all with respect to the applicability of CEQA to the Override determination.
31. CEQA applies to “discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by a public agency.” (Pub. Resources Code § 21080(a).) Approval of the Override was a “Project” under CEQA because the Override is an activity carried out, supported by, or authorized by a public agency, “which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (Pub. Resources Code § 21065; Guidelines § 15378(a).)
32. Respondents made no CEQA findings related to the Override. Accordingly, Respondents’ Override should be set aside.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray for judgment as follows:
1. That this Court issue a peremptory writ of mandate ordering the County to:
(a) vacate and set aside its December 12, 2006, Override on the ground that it violates the State Aeronautics Act, Public Utilities Code section 21001 et. seq.;
(b) prepare adequate findings of fact, including findings bridging the analytical gap between the raw evidence and the ultimate decision;
(c) vacate and set aside its December 12, 2006, Override on the ground that it violates the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.;
(d) prepare, circulate and consider legally adequate environmental review for the Override;
(e) suspend all activity that could result in any change or alteration to the physical environment until Respondents have taken such actions as may be necessary to bring its determination, findings or decision regarding the Override into compliance with the Act and CEQA;
2. For Petitioner’s costs associated with this action;
3. For an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; and
4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF DONALD B. MOONEY
Dated: March ___, 2007
By Donald B. Mooney
Attorney for Petitioners
San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, and
Protect Our Water