Court Orders City of Banning to Set Aside Approval of Massive Sprawl Development

Highland Springs Conference and Training Center v. City of Banning, Case: Case Number RIC 460950, Riverside Superior Court.

Riverside, CA (PRWEB) April 10, 2008 -- Riverside Superior Court Judge Cahraman today ordered the City of Banning to set aside its approval of the Black Bench project because it violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in approving a 1,400 home leapfrog development at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains (Case Number RIC 460950 Riverside Superior Court). The judge found the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project inadequate in nine different ways.

A major failing of the EIR was approving the remote project without a primary access road. All of the primary access roads analyzed in the EIR went through the Highland Springs Conference and Training Center, commonly known as the Highland Springs Resort. The resort's lands are primarily wildlands used by families, churches, and over 2500 students that visit "Camp Highland" for a week each year to learn more about the natural environment. Because the Resort wants to preserve the unique wilderness experience it offers, it would not agree to sell SunCal, the developer, an access easement. The only other access road, the narrow, windy, and steep Bluff Street, was restricted to use for emergency evacuation. Nonetheless, the Banning City Council, in a 3-2 vote, approved the project.

Judge Cahraman found that in doing so, the City improperly piecemealed the project, since what access road was left uncertain. Because of this, the City could not conclude that a variety of other impacts would be insignificant. He also found that there was not substantial evidence of an adequate water supply for the project, noting that the groundwater basin are already in overdraft, and that the City improperly rejected two environmentally preferable project alternatives, without showing they were feasible.

Environmental attorney Jan Chatten-Brown, of Chatten-Brown & Carstens, who represented the Resort, said, "This judgment protects an extraordinary piece of property. The proposed use is incompatible with surrounding uses, which are national forest, wildlands, and very low density rural development. We are fortunate to have an environmental law---CEQA--- that requires decisionmakers to take environmental values into account, and prohibits approval of projects when there are feasible alternatives. The idea of approving a massive project in a remote location without access is antithetical to basic CEQA principles."

According to Tina Kummerle, the President of the Highland Springs Resort, "It is great peace of mind knowing that thousands of students who come here each year, many of who have their first experience with the wildness, will be able to continue to do so hopefully far into the future and to know that the local wildlife population will continue to live freely in the wildlife corridor created by the surrounding mountains and surrounding properties."

In addition to the challenge by the Highland Springs Conference and Training Center, the project was challenged by two local community groups, and the Center for Biological Diversity.

For additional information, contact:

Jan Chatten-Brown, Chatten-Brown & Carstens

2601 Ocean Park Blvd, Suite 205, Santa Monica, CA

Phone: 310 314-8040 ext. 1

e-mail: jcb @ cbccbcearthlaw.com

website: www.cbcearthlaw.com    

http://www.cbcearthlaw.com

###