legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Fickewirth v. County of Placer

Fickewirth v. County of Placer
09:08:2006

Fickewirth v. County of Placer



Filed 9/7/06 Fickewirth v. County of Placer CA3







NOT TO BE PUBLISHED






California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT


(Placer)













WALTER FICKEWIRTH et al.,


Plaintiffs and Appellants,


v.


COUNTY OF PLACER et al.,


Defendants and Respondents,


LAKEVIEW FARMS, INC., et al.


Real Parties in Interest and


Respondents.





C049669



Super.Ct.No.SCV 16643







KIRK SCILACCI et al.,


Plaintiffs and Appellants,


v.


COUNTY OF PLACER et al.,


Defendants and Appellants,


LAKEVIEW FARMS, Inc., et al.


Real Parties in Interest and


Appellants.





C049669



Super.Ct.No. SVC 16646






Real party in interest Lakeview Farms, Inc. (Lakeview Farms), operates a hunting club and proposed to move a residence, clubhouse, and bird growing facilities to the Coon Creek hunting and fishing preserve. The primary objection to the project came from neighbors concerned about the noise generated by proposed clay and trap shooting stations. There were also objections that the proposed uses of the clubhouse were incompatible with the agricultural area, the raising of over 40,000 game fowl classified the project as a chicken or turkey ranch requiring a conditional use permit, and there was insufficient information about the mitigation measures of harvesting the lead shot. Placer County (the County) approved the project, adopting a mitigated negative declaration and approving a minor use permit.


Opponents of the project, the Fickewirths and the Scilaccis, separately petitioned for a writ of mandate to set aside the adoption of the mitigated negative declaration and the issuance of a minor use permit for Lakeview Farms. The trial court denied the Fickewirth petition and granted the Scilacci petition in part as it related to harvesting lead shot from the sporting clay shooting stations and requiring a conditional use permit to raise thousands of pheasants.


All parties appeal. The Scilaccis contend jurisdiction to challenge the zoning administrator's original denial of the clay and trap shooting portion of the project was lost due to failure to file a timely appeal. They further contend the project violated the County's general plan and zoning ordinances. The Fickewirths contend it was error under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) to adopt a mitigated negative declaration instead of preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) because there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the shooting range portion of the project may have a significant noise impact. Lakeview Farms and Placer County contend the trial court erred in requiring further review of the environmental impacts of harvesting lead shot and in ruling a conditional use permit was required for the bird-raising facility.


We find merit only in the Fickewirths's appeal. The record contains substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the sporting clay shooting range may have an adverse noise impact under the standards adopted by the County as to what normally constitutes a significant impact. We reverse the judgment dismissing the Fickewirths's petition.


The contentions of the other parties are without merit. We affirm the judgment granting, in part, the Scilaccis's petition for a peremptory writ of mandate.


FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


The Project


In 2001, Lakeview Farms learned that the site of its business and the home of its owner, Don Norris, was to be acquired by CalTrans as part of the Highway 65 bypass project. Lakeview Farms intended to relocate the residence, clubhouse, and bird growing facilities (35,000 pheasants, 2,500 chukars, 1,000 quail, and 100 turkeys) to a 1,000-acre site known as Coon Creek Preserve. Approximately 80 acres would be set aside for the residence, clubhouse, barns, and bird growing and bird cleaning facilities. The remaining 920 acres had been committed through easements to upland game and waterfowl habitat. The new clubhouse would be 5,980 square feet and accommodate 450 members. It would include a retail sales area for hunting supplies, including guns and ammunition, and a deli and coffee facility that would eventually provide breakfast and lunch. The hours of operation would be 6:00 am to 5:00 pm five days a week and 6:00 am to 9:00 pm two days a week. There would be parking for 170 vehicles and 20 RVs. The clubhouse would host special events including field trail events, competitive shooting events, weddings, public fundraising events, corporate and small business meetings, organizational events for Ducks Unlimited, CWA and Pheasants Forever, classroom training in habitat restoration, wildlife management and conservation, and public hunter safety courses. Special events were planned for one to four times a week.


Lakeview Farms would offer fishing and dog training in accordance with federal and state laws and Department of Fish and Game regulations. It would also host recreational shooting events and create 14 sporting clay stations and 5 trap-shooting stations, with the same hours of operation as the clubhouse.


Proceedings Before Planning Commission


The Placer County Planning Department (Planning Department) prepared an initial study for the project that found no significant environmental impacts and recommended a mitigated negative declaration. It found: â€





Description Real party in interest, operates a hunting club and proposed to move a residence, clubhouse, and bird growing facilities to the Coon Creek hunting and fishing preserve. The primary objection to the project came from neighbors concerned about the noise generated by proposed clay and trap shooting stations. There were also objections that the proposed uses of the clubhouse were incompatible with the agricultural area, the raising of over 40,000 game fowl classified the project as a chicken or turkey ranch requiring a conditional use permit, and there was insufficient information about the mitigation measures of harvesting the lead shot. Placer County (the County) approved the project, adopting a mitigated negative declaration and approving a minor use permit. The court finds merit only in the Fickewirths's appeal. The record contains substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the sporting clay shooting range may have an adverse noise impact under the standards adopted by the County as to what normally constitutes a significant impact. The appeals court reverse the judgment dismissing the Fickewirths's petition.



The contentions of the other parties are without merit. We affirm the judgment granting, in part, the Scilaccis's petition for a peremptory writ of mandate.


Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale