This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Environmental Law
Environmental Impact Report
California Environmental Quality Act

Citizens Advocating for Roblar Rural Quality v. County of Sonoma, County of Sonoma Board of Supervisors, County of Sonoma Permit Resources and Management Department

Published: Sep. 29, 2012 | Result Date: Aug. 2, 2012 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: SCV-248943 Bench Decision –  Writ Petition Granted in Part

Court

Sonoma Superior


Attorneys

Petitioner

Michael E. Molland

Deborah E. Quick


Respondent

Holly E. Rickett


Facts

The Roblar Road quarry was first proposed in 2003 and was the latest proposal in a long line of mining project proposals on the subject site that have been contested by neighboring residents in Sonoma County. After years of environmental review, hearings, and public comment, the project and it's related EIR were approved by the county in late 2010. The project would produce about 11 million cubic yards of construction grade aggregate over about 20 years. Supporters claimed it would be a sustainable source of badly needed jobs and provide a greener alternative to sourcing aggregate from outside the country, while opponents argued that the quarry's environmental and economic impacts had not been sufficiently studied or documented. The opponents argued that blasting and mining at the quarry could cause water contamination.

Citizens Advocating for Roblar Rural Quality filed suit, arguing that the environmental impact report that was prepared was inadequate.

Result

The court struck down the approval for the project, finding that key parts of the environmental impact report were inadequate. In particular, studies of possible water contamination were deemed "utterly inadequate" by the court, and analysis of possible impacts on a nearby creek fell short of what was required. The court rejected challenges to other key parts of the environmental impact report, including analyses of air quality and roadway impacts, finding these studies to satisfy applicable legal requirements.


#96357

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390