Lishman

Save Our Neighborhood v. Lishman

Good Law
140 Cal. App. 4th 1288·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 988·2006 Daily Journal DAR 8335·45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 306·36 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20125
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 28, 2006C049525California3,654 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hull, J.

After the City of Placerville (the City) approved a project for the construction of a hotel, gas station, and convenience store complex, various residents near the project site brought this action for writ of mandate claiming, among other things, the approval violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.; further undesignated section references are to the Public Resources Code) and the project is inconsistent with the City’s general plan. The trial court entered judgment denying the petition, concluding the City proceeded in the manner required by CEQA and there is substantial evidence to support the City’s approval. Plaintiffs appeal nearly every aspect of the trial court’s decision. We agree with plaintiffs that the City did not comply with CEQA and reverse the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This dispute involves a development project planned for an 8.2-acre parcel of real property located in the eastern portion of Placerville between Smith Flat Road to the north and State Highway 50 to the south (the property). The area north of the property includes Smith Flat, a low density residential community.

In 1986,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.