The County of Colusa has amended its lawsuit over the housing development at Colusa Industrial Properties for a third time after reaching an agreement with the developers to strike the county’s allegations that the city violated provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in 2016 when the Colusa City Council approved an increase in the number of single family lots from 84, as approved by the county in 2008, to 180, which the city approved after the property was annexed into the city limits.
According to the Stipulation to Strike, which was filed by Colusa Industrial Propertie’s attorney on Feb. 7, the statute of limitations for the county to file a complaint on CEQA violations expired 180 days after the May 17, 2016 approvals, and was upheld by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Steven M. Gevercer in December.
CIP and the County of Colusa agreed to strike the allegation from the complaint to avoid the court being burdened with a Motion to Strike by attorneys representing the developers.
The County filed its amended lawsuit on Feb. 10, striking certain allegations and mitigation measures that are now time-barred, such as requiring a revised conceptual land use plan that reduces the number of houses in the western portion of the project area to reduce airport land use, noise, and safety conflicts.
Attorneys for the County and developers also agreed the third complaint would strike the allegation that the initial study did not address the project as eventually approved by the City.
Otherwise, the lawsuit, as amended, remains the same as the second complaint with the County claiming the city’s findings erroneously state that the revised project is “within the scope” of the City’s Master Environmental Impact Report and that the city has failed to enforce a number of mitigation measures adopted by the Colusa City Council when the project was approved.
The County’s third amended lawsuit largely challenges the decision of the Colusa City Council, following three public hearings on Sept. 9, Oct. 19, and Nov. 21, 2021, to override the ALUC’s findings that the project is inconsistent with airport operation – an argument Judge Gevercer said was “potentially meritorious.”
At that time of the hearings, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics had informed the City Council that its findings were not consistent with the purposes of the statutes set forth in the California Public Utilities Code section and that the project will create safety problems, negatively impact the ability of the airport for future orderly development, create new incompatible land uses near the airport, and adversely impact the ability to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
The City and developers have denied the allegations because the project added houses but eliminated the multi-residential units and congregate facility, thus resulting in a net reduction in the number of people that would be in the development at any given time.
As of Tuesday, the city and developer had not filed answers to the third amended complaint. A hearing on the county’s writ of mandate and request for an injunction on the project was still scheduled for 11 AM on Feb. 24. ■