Schenck

Schenck v. County of Sonoma

Good Law
130 Cal. Rptr. 3d 527·198 Cal. App. 4th 949·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1120·41 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20274
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 26, 2011No. A129646California4,898 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Dondero, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in an action challenging the approval of a project for development of a beverage distribution facility on grounds that the County of Sonoma failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) 1 before issuing a mitigated negative declaration. Plaintiff Beverly Schenck *953 claims proper notice of the administrative proceedings was not given to public agencies and the findings of no significant impact on the environment are contrary to the evidence. We conclude that a single error in the notice procedure was not prejudicial, and the substantial evidence does not support a fair argument that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. We therefore affirm the judgment.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 19, 2006, the real parties in interest, Liquid Investments, Inc., and Mesa Beverage Company, Inc. (Mesa), filed an application with the permit and resource management department (the Department) of defendant County of Sonoma for approval to develop and construct a 155,149-square-foot warehouse and beverage distribution facility, along with an…

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.