legal news


Register | Forgot Password

EUREKA CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT v. CITY OF EUREKA PART I

EUREKA CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT v. CITY OF EUREKA PART I
02:22:2007

EUREKA CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT v


EUREKA CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT v. CITY OF EUREKA


Filed 1/8/07; part. pub. & mod. order 2/1/07 (see end of opn.)


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT


DIVISION FIVE










EUREKA CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT et al.,


 


           Plaintiffs and Appellants,


           v.


CITY OF EUREKA et al.,


           Defendants and Respondents.


     


 


       A113289


 


      (HumboldtCounty


      Super. Ct. No. CV050270)


 


EUREKACHURCH OF THE NAZARENE et al.,


            Real Parties in Interest and             Respondents.


 


            In this matter, a school playground has become a neighborhood battleground.  This case arises from objections by appellants Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government (Eureka Citizens),[1] James Emery, and Andrew and Ida Nash (collectively appellants) to use by the Eureka Church of the Nazarene (Church), and its related Redwood Christian School (School) (collectively applicant), of a portion of its property as a school playground (the Project).  Appellants contend that the City of Eureka (City) improperly granted post hoc approval of illegally constructed Project improvements, failed to properly apply and enforce its own land use ordinances, and failed to conduct an appropriate environmental review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. (CEQA)).  The trial court denied appellants' petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn the City's approval of the Project.  We affirm.


I.  FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY


The Church has occupied the property at 2039 ‘E' Street in Eureka for over 50 years.  For the past 26 years, the Church has operated the Redwood Christian School on its property.  The School, which is limited to 70 students in grades K-8, is located within a predominantly single family residential district,[2] and therefore required a conditional use permit (CUP), which was granted by the City on March 18, 1980.[3]  One of the conditions of the 1980 approval by the City was â€





Description Fact that initial draft of EIR was prepared by counsel for applicants did not render it "biased and legally inadequate" where it was reviewed and modified by agency staff, closely scrutinized by independent consultants, and adopted in final form as reflecting the judgment of the agency. Agency's findings on noise impact, aesthetic, and safety issues were entitled to deference and were sufficient where explained in EIR.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale