Search
Polls
Latest Forum Posts
| Taking a Knee unclebuck 15-11-08 13:51 |
| Re:Football unclebuck 07-10-08 15:24 |
| Re:Football unclebuck 02-10-08 12:59 |
Login Form
| City, county both say court ruling is on their side |
|
|
| Written by James Leonard | Patterson Irrigator | |
| Friday, 14 November 2008 | |
 LITIGATION SENSATION: The West Park project, proposed for the Crows Landing Naval Airfield, above, faces a challenge in court Nov. 21. PI File Photo A hearing is set for Nov. 21 in Fresno Superior Court to determine whether Patterson’s lawsuit — which claims that the county violated state law by approving PCCP West Park as the developer for the former Crows Landing Naval Airbase before a full environmental review had been done on the project — should be dismissed. Both sides in the West Park case filed briefs last week offering their interpretations of how the recent Supreme Court ruling supports their arguments. On Oct. 30, the state Supreme Court ruled in the case Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood that the city violated state law by joining two developers and obtaining a federal grant for a senior citizen housing project before an environmental review had been completed. The ruling determined that a full environmental impact report on a project must be completed at the time of the governmental agency’s earliest commitment to the project, rather than at its final approval. The question courts must answer, then, is what constitutes commitment to a project. Stanislaus County argues in its brief that the agreement between West Hollywood and the developers differs fundamentally from the “memorandum of understanding” between Stanislaus County and PCCP West Park. West Hollywood’s agreement, the county argues, contained strong language indicating its commitment to the project and was accompanied by a $1 million loan to facilitate its development. It believes that represents a stronger commitment to the project than the county’s commitment to West Park, and therefore the West Park agreement did not need to be preceded by an environmental review. Both sides noted the Supreme Court’s statement that courts should look at surrounding circumstances — such as the $1 million loan from West Hollywood — in addition to the language of the agreement in determining whether a project has been prematurely approved. The county points to “surrounding circumstances” in the West Park case, such as the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors being told the agreement would not become binding until the environmental review had been completed, along with comments by supervisors indicating they reserved the right to back out of the deal at any point. The city, in its brief, looks at other surrounding circumstances as proof that the project has gained the “bureaucratic and financial momentum” that the court said could compromise an environmental study conducted too late in the process. The $1 million loan in the West Hollywood case is similar, the city says, to the 170 acres of land — valued at $12.5 million — that the county said it would provide for the West Park development in the memorandum of understanding. The city also points to language in the agreement indicating the county’s commitment to the project. The city also cites the county’s application to the California Transportation Commission for bond money to be used for the short-haul rail needed for the project. The application, according to the city’s brief, discloses the county’s financial commitment to the project, its plans to enter into an agreement with Union Pacific Railroad and its intent to make the West Park project the county’s No. 1 priority. Contact James Leonard at 892-6187 or This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 372 Comments
(0)
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed