|
By Rebecca Bernard, Assoc. Litigation Coordinator
Many sprawl-inducing projects are pushed through local approval
processes so quickly that important local, state and even federal
environmental laws are violated. Although taking a city, county or
developer to court is a last resort, litigation can be a crucial way
for citizens to protect natural lands and wildlife from the devastating
effects of urban sprawl. Federal laws like the Endangered Species Act
are sometimes compromised by projects that destroy wetlands or critical
habitat for endangered species. More often, state and local land use
regulations are at issue, as a recent California case demonstrates.
In the pastoral oak-and-savannah foothills of the Diablo Grande
Mountains, developers proposed a massive "new town" project that would
carve a 29,500-acre scar of residences, retail and commercial
facilities and golf courses into the landscape, destroying the habitat
of the endangered kit fox. When the Stanislaus County Board of
Supervisors ignored the objections of local anti-sprawl activists and
gave the project the green light in 1993, the Sierra Club and the
Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project took their objections to the
courts.
First, claimed the litigants, the county's approval violated California
land use planning law, which requires that every land use approval
conform to the city or county general plan (a state-mandated blueprint
for local development).
Litigants charged that the county's approval of the project failed to
conform to sections of the general plan promoting preservation of
agriculture, rangeland and endangered species, and restricting
residential development to urban areas and areas with adequate existing
utilities. They also claimed the approval violated the California
Environmental Quality Act, which requires an environmental impact
report for any project authorized or undertaken by a public agency that
is likely to have a significant environmental effect.
Two other state laws were invoked for ostensible violations -- the
Williamson Act and the California Endangered Species Act. The
Williamson Act authorizes California counties to contract with farmers
and ranchers to maintain their lands in farming or ranching.
Anti-sprawl advocates alleged that the county allowed early
cancellation of Williamson Act contracts even though this would lead to
"leapfrog" development. The plaintiffs also charged the county with
violating the California Endangered Species Act because they approved
the Diablo Grande project even though it would result in the
destruction of the kit fox's habitat.
Lawsuits opposing sprawl can be an uphill battle, but the Diablo
Grande challenge has been a success story so far. Recently, a
California appellate court struck down the county's environmental
impact report because it failed to explain where the water for 5,000
new residences would come from. Now it's back to the drawing board for
Stanislaus County.
http://www.sierraclub.org/planet/199704/legal.asp
Up to Top
|
