SDC Specific Plan set aside by Superior Court for CEQA violations

At the close of a court hearing on April 26, Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Bradford DeMeo ordered that the SDC Specific Plan and EIR approvals be set aside.

In a Press Release, Local environmental groups Sonoma County Tomorrow and Sonoma Community Advocates for a Liveable Environment (SCALE), a coalition of Sonoma Mountain Preservation, Eldridge for All, the Glen Ellen Historical Society, and the Valley of the Moon Alliance, announced they have prevailed in their lawsuit challenging approvals of the Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC) Specific Plan and the related Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process.

In a comprehensive 40 page decision, the Court held that the County violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in numerous respects including that the Plan EIR failed to: include an adequate project description with respect to the number of housing units allowed; adequately address impacts on biological resources, wildlife corridors, and wildfire evacuation; address cumulative impacts of the pending Hanna Center project; and adequately respond to the comments of concerned community members on the Draft EIR.

The Court also addressed the lawsuit’s overarching challenge to the Plan regarding its questionable “self-mitigation” approach, ruling that “purported mitigation measures in the Plan are, as a whole, ineffective, vague, and devoid of any semblance of performance standards in violation of CEQA.”

The Court held that the County’s failure to identify mitigation for environmental impacts was compounded by the omission of a legally required mitigation monitoring plan to “implement such mitigation measures as are presented.” The Court also found “no substantial evidence or analysis whatsoever” to support the County’s contention that there are no feasible mitigation measures for the Plan’s significant impacts to historic resources and transportation. The Court concluded that the Plan’s proposed mitigation measures are on the whole “vague and limited to hopeful intentions.”

Finally, the Court rejected the County’s findings that the EIR’s identified Historic Preservation Alternative for a reduced size project is infeasible. “The EIR and the entirety of the cited portions of the record are wholly devoid of anything resembling either substantial evidence or the analytical route which could support the finding that the Preservation Alternative is infeasible.”

“The EIR failed to provide the County Board of Supervisors with sufficient information to properly analyze and make an informed decision on alternatives and mitigation measures for the SDC project,” said Vicki Hill, SCALE steering committee member and local professional land use planner. ”We deeply appreciate the Court’s comprehensive analysis of this important case, and look forward to meaningful environmental review and approval of a Specific Plan of appropriate scale for this unique site and irreplaceable community resource.”

“We are confident that a revised analysis will demonstrate what hundreds of community members and experts have said – only a smaller scale development can balance impacts with development goals,” said Sonoma County Tomorrow Board member Reuben Weinzveg.

SCALE steering committee member and long-term Sonoma Valley resident Alice Horowitz stated that “the community support for the challenge to the County’s EIR was amazing and made this result possible. As we consistently advocated to the County, we need a plan that prioritizes and ensures housing first (before a hotel and extensive commercial development) at a scale that is compatible with the surrounding community, ensures wildfire evacuation safety, protects the critical wildlife corridor, and preserves the historic character of the site.”

Sun columnist Teri Shore, a member of the lawsuit coalition that challenged the County Plan, noted, “Such a big legal victory for our lands and environment gives us a second chance to protect our open space and environment and scale back the massive development pushed by the county and state.”