APPEAL COURT INVALIDATES CONTROVERSIAL MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

APPEAL COURT INVALIDATES CONTROVERSIAL MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION;

County Violated General Plan, State Law, Fire Safety

RIVERSIDE, CA, October 31, 2008 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- The state’s 4th District Appeals Court today affirmed a lower court decision that the County of San Bernardino violated state law in approving a controversial Lake Arrowhead subdivision in November 2005.

Three appellate justices upheld Superior Court Judge John P. Wade’s ruling that the County General Plan was “unambiguous” in requiring that an evacuation route be completed before approval could be granted. The appellate court further ruled that the County violated its own development code as well as state environmental law by failing to identify an adequate water source for the project. The county also failed to do an accurate analysis of biological impacts.

“The decision is a victory for grassroots democracy, public participation and the need for more responsible planning in our local fire-prone mountains,” said Dr. Hugh Bialecki, president of the Save Our Forest Association, speaking for mountain residents and conservation organizations pleased with the ruling.

“The public has every right to expect County officials to ensure basic evacuation capacity in mountain communities,” said Steve Farrell, vice-chair of the Sierra Club Mountains Group.

“After three huge fires in the mountains in four years, hopefully the Supervisors will now recognize that public safety must take precedence over development,” said Drew Feldmann, president of the San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society.

The subdivision project — known as Blue Ridge Estates, or the Hawarden Development — was planned for a steep slope near Cedar Glen, an area considered hazardous for wildfire that was largely burned by the catastrophic Old Fire of 2003.

“Fires are a fact of life in southern California forests, but overdevelopment in highly fire-prone areas, such as the Hawarden site, impedes the natural cycles and greatly compounds the problem,” said Adam Keats, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity and director of its Urban Wildlands Program.

The Hawarden Project was the first significant mountain development proposal to follow after the devastating Old Fire. By ignoring key public safety and fire protection guidelines as well as critical open-space policies and water shortages, the project aroused intense controversy.

“The public fully expected the Board of Supervisors to be particularly strict in implementing vital safety and open-space policies, after such an alarming wildfire where 80,000 people were evacuated (that’s the entire mountain population),” Bialecki said. “Instead, we were shocked by the stubborn disregard for sensible planning.”

“The appellate court decision is a strong endorsement for responsible planning taking precedent over cutting corners for developers,” he said. “Ironically, many of these same points were noted by professional planners and agency personnel at earlier stages, but became reversed at the insistence of the developer. One example was the fire department downgrading the fire hazard level from ‘extreme’ as mandated for steep wildland slopes, to ‘level two’ as intended for flat land, despite the on-site discrepancy, due to developer lobbying.”

The appellate court vigorously upheld the importance of a proper Environmental Impact Report, or EIR, as part of the California Environmental Quality Act. The EIR had deceptively discounted critical wildlife habitat and altogether circumvented the serious lack of a reliable water supply.

“Although we pointed out these problems during the comments phase, the EIR consultants and county politicians basically ignored us and apparently presumed that ordinary citizens wouldn’t have the time, money or endurance to challenge these transgressions,” Feldmann said. “The Court fully recognized the vital role that water planning must play in land-use decisions,” said Douglas Carstens, an attorney with the environmental law firm Chatten-Brown and Carstens, which represented the petitioners. “Gone are the days when cities and counties could approve development just based on the assumption that adequate water supplies would somehow materialize in the future.”

The case is Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. County of San Bernardino, SCVSS 133424.

Case number: E042316, web link: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub.htm

Contacts: