Friends of Mammoth, Andrea M. Lawrence, Patricia Savage and Pat Eckart v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency and Town of Mammoth Lakes
Published: Jul. 25, 1998 | Result Date: Mar. 10, 1998 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 12308 Bench Decision – $0
Judge
Court
Mono Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
James C. Fedalen
(HFL Law Group LLP)
Respondent
Facts
The town of Mammoth Lakes has grown from a population of about 390 in the 1960s to its present population of over 5,000. The town incorporated in 1984. Much of the growth of Mammoth Lakes occurred without planning and coordination. Respondent town believes much of Mammoth is now blighted as the term is defined in Community Redevelopment Law. The respondents, therefore, initiated the Redevelopment process in order to alleviate the deterioration within the town. The Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency was formed in March 1992. The redevelopment planning process began in March 1996 when the town hired redevelopment consultants, developed a project area and announced its intentions to business and property owners. On June 18, 1997, the Redevelopment Agency adopted Resolution Number 97-07 and the Town Council adopted Resolution Number 97-35, both Resolutions approving the Redevelopment Plan and the Redevelopment Plan report and certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the redevelopment process. On July 2, the Town Council adopted Ordinance Number 97-08 which adopted the Redevelopment Plan for the project area. On July 17, petitioners filed a petition for Writ of Mandate and Injunctive Relief challenging the adequacy of the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Respondents answered and were joined by intervenors, Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, Mammoth Mountain Land Corp., and Intrawest Mammoth Corporation, in defending the environmental review. Citizens for Mammoth was granted leave to file a brief as amicus curiae.
Settlement Discussions
The petitioners made a settlement demand for $__________. The respondents made an offer to compromise for $_____________ .
Other Information
The decision was reached approximately 10 months after the case was filed. Judgment was entered May 5, 1988. The court disagreed with the petitioners' primary contention finding that the respondents properly prepared the subject EIR as a tiered, program EIR pursuant to Guideline 15168. The court further found that the EIR complies with CEQA with respect to the EIR's description of the project and environmental setting and that the EIR sufficiently complied with º21061 and Guidelines 15006 and 15150 when incorporating by reference the documents used in support of the EIR. The court also found that the respondents' determinations were supported by substantial evidence with regard to anaylyzing the impacts in relation to the existing environment, the inconsistencies between the Redevelopment Plan and the General Plan, determinations of Mitigation Measures and Cumulative Impacts. The court found the petitioners' attacks on the various alternatives to be without merit; and that the Responses to Comments showed good faith and reasoned analysis and did not need to be exhaustive.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390