A hearing has been scheduled for Feb. 24 in Sacramento County Superior Court on Colusa County’s amended lawsuit against the City of Colusa and the developers of the housing project near the local airport.
The amended petition asking the court for the city to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act was filed in late December.
The petition also asks the court for an alternative and peremptory writ of mandate directing the Colusa City Council to vacate its Nov. 2, 2021, decision to overrule the findings of the Airport Land Use Commission that the housing project is inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, is not supported by the findings, and the finding are not supported by the evidence.
The county, in its amended petition, alleges the Colusa City Council committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion when they overruled the Airport Land Use Commission’s finding that the project – which changed from 84 homes and affordable multi-unit apartments to 180 homes – violated state law.
The county claims that the city not only failed to follow CEQA guidelines for subsequent review when the scope of the project significantly changed, but had only disclosed for the first time at its 2021 hearings on the proposed ALUC override that the city is not enforcing, and/or would not enforce, numerous mitigation measures that it had adopted for the project.
Among the mitigation measures the city has not or is not enforcing are a requirement for the developer to provide fair-share funding for installing a traffic signal on SR 20 at Sunrise Boulevard and Farinon Road; construct a minimum six-foot tall wall along the western project boundary to minimize conflict between the residences and adjacent agricultural lands; and implement a lighting and landscaping plan for uses along state route 20 similar to that used in the adjacent office park.
The county also claims the adopted mitigation measures also require the applicant to designate at least 10 percent of the units as affordable housing and provide funding for additional law enforcement and firefighters, along with providing fair share funding to the city for park development, maintenance, operations, and renovations to mitigate the impacts of the new residents.
Mitigation measures also require the applicant to provide sidewalks and bike routes on all project roads and establish opportunities for transit; require that the tentative subdivision map identify a safe pedestrian walkway and bicycle path between the project’s land uses and Wescott Road; require a minimum six foot high noise barrier along the northwest corner of the project during construction; and require the developer to maintain, widen or relocate, as necessary, the ditch from the southern end of the development to the park boundary to increase flows during periods of flooding.
“The City has not followed CEQA’s required procedures for modifying or deleting mitigation measures,” the lawsuit states. “It has not identified any legitimate reasons for not enforcing mitigation measures adopted for the project, has not performed supplemental environmental review required by CEQA to either modify or delete the mitigation measures it adopted for the project, and has not issued a statement of overriding considerations explaining its reasoning for accepting significant environmental impacts that are not being mitigated due to the City’s failure to enforce mitigation measures.”
The city has maintained since the county first filed the lawsuit in January 2022 that the project, as approved in 2018, will not adversely impact the ability to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, nor adversely impact the orderly expansion of the airport.
The hearing is scheduled for 3 PM.
They county is asking the court for a stay, temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction on further development until the city and developer has fully complied with all CEQA requirements and all other state and local laws, including compliance with all applicable land use and development standards set forth in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. ■