On This Date: CVAN vs City of Beaumont

Discussion on Lawsuit to Stop the Legacy Highlands Project Filed on February 2, 2009

By: Libi Uremovic| Original Article at Patch.com

CVAN vs City of Beaumont 02/03/2009

Six Years ago today the Cherry Valley Pass Acres and Neighbors won their Lawsuit against the City of Beaumont effectively stopping the Construction of the Legacy Highlands Project which would have built 2,868 houses in the Southwest portion of Beaumont.

CVAN won by challenging the EIR (Environmental Impact Report). The Statement of Decision sounds like a Jr. version of the WRCOG Judgement and centers around water.

“the court finds that the EIR does not adequately analyze the project’s water supply impacts. The City’s determination that there is sufficient water to support the project is not supported by substantial evidence. In addition, the City’s alternative analysis violates CEQA. The Court further finds that the City’s overriding considerations do not comply with CEQA.”

“The court finds that a proper Water Supply Assessment was not prepared in compliance with SB 610. In addition, the EIR’s discussion and considerations of water supply impacts are legally deficient..”

“The revised POS fails to comply with SB 610. Providing an adequate SB 610 Assessment is the obligation of respondent City.”

“The water supply analysis in the EIR is inconsistent, confusing, and inadequate. The information in the different documents simply does not match up and cannot be reconciled.”

“Finally, the City’s reliance on recycled water to substitute for existing potable water is also inadequately explained and analyzed. Despite the fact that the recycled plan is critical to long range water plans, there is very little analysis in the EIR regarding the “when, where, and how” of building the ‘extensive recycled water system” envisioned in the EIR, or of possible replacement sources and alternatives if recycled water is delayed or fails to materialize.”

“The City’s findings regarding water resource impacts are not supported by substantial evidence.”

“The court finds that the City’s alternatives analysis violates CEQA.”

“The City’s overriding considerations violate CEQA.”

“The wit of mad ate shall issue requiring respondent City to set aside approval of the project and suspend all activity on the Project until it has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with CEQA.”