Court rules SB violated its own policies, state law
Jason Pesick, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 10/27/2008 09:29:26 PM PDT
A state appeals court ruled Monday that San Bernardino County violated its own policies and state law in 2005 when it approved a development project in Lake Arrowhead.
The Fourth Appellate District court's Riverside division sided with the Center for Biological Diversity, Save Our Forest Association, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society and the Sierra Club Mountains Group that the Board of Supervisors erred when approving the 57-lot Blue Ridge Estates.
"There are issues that are unique to the mountains that were not properly dealt with here," said Douglas Carstens, a lawyer with the Santa Monica firm Chatten-Brown and Carstens, which represented the groups suing the county and Hawarden Development Co.
The court found the county violated its own general plan because Cumberland Road, which would have served as an evacuation route, needed to be completed before the area could be developed.
The court also found that the county violated the California Environmental Quality Act because the county approved a development project and certified an environmental impact report that did not take into account the impacts on the Southern rubber boa snake, identify a source of water for the project or discuss the potential impacts of obtaining water from various possible sources.
The supervisors approved the project Nov. 15, 2005, and the environmental groups sued not long after.
"I think the problem is putting human development and structures in areas that are historically subject to burn," Carstens said.
Andy Bodewin, owner of Blue Ridge Development, said because of the ruling, the project will likely have to be changed and won't include many amenities, like a water reservoir or water wells he would have donated to the community. The project would have to be built in a way that would not require building the full evacuation route, Cumberland Road, from Highway 189 to Highway 18, he said.
Bodewin, who was planning to develop lots but not build the houses, said he doubts he will appeal the case.
"Well, we're going to do something different," he said.
County officials maintain that their approval was not flawed, said spokesman David Wert. He said it is the developer, not the county, that will be adversely affected by the ruling.
"It's really up to the developer where they want to go at this point," he said.
Leave a comment