You are on page 1of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

LAW OFFICES REDWINE AND SHERRILL 1950 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501-1720 TELEPHONE (951) 664-2520 FACSIMILES (951) 654-9583 (P51) 276-9099

FEB 21 2007

Julianna K. Strong, State Bar No. 180552 Scott R. Heil, State Bar No. 162817 Attorneys for Petitioner COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

FEE EXEMPT UNDEPI. GOV. CODE SECTION 610

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE - INDIO DISTRICT

COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, ) Case No. INC 065049 ) (CEQA) Petitioner, ) Assigned for All Purposes to: ) The Honorable James S. Hawkins, Dept. 3R vs. ) ) CITY OF INDIO, ) FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT ) OF MANDATE Respondent. ) ) ) SUNCAL COMPANIES, ) ) Real Party in Interest. ) )

COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT alleges:


23 24 25 26 27 28

1.

Petitioner, COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, is a county water

district organized and existing under the County Water District Law (Water Code section 30000 e seq.) and the Coachella District Merger Law (Water Code section 33100 et seq.), with its principa place of business in Coachella, County of Riverside, State of California. Petitioner supplies

-1FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

domestic and irrigation water throughout the Coachella Valley and the project Petitioner challenges, as currently planned, will draw water from a groundwater basin already in overdraft, which also serves as a source of water for Petitioner. 2. Respondent, CITY OF INDIO (CITY), is a general law city which operates under

the laws of the State of California and applicable ordinances adopted by the City Council. 3. Petitioner is informed and believes Real Party in Interest, SCC ACQUISITIONS,

INC., dba SUNCAL COMPANIES, is a California corporation, doing business in the Coachella Valley area of Riverside County, and is an applicant for, and recipient of, various entitlements for

10
11

the construction of the Citrus Ranch planned development, consisting of up to 3,075 dwelling units (single-family and multi-family), a golf course, trails, community center and other amenities. 4. The project is a mixed-use development generally located at the intersection of

12

uch oz__,
w14(vn , z 0u0-1

0 co 13 awN10 Iii a Z 41814

Dillon Road and Fargo Canyon Road. Respondent is the lead agency responsible under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for evaluating the environmental impacts of the

dE. w w 17 18 19 20 21 22

project. 5. Respondent caused a draft environmental impact report (EIR) for the Citrus Ranch

Specific Plan ("the project") to be prepared and circulated from October 2, 2006, to November 15, 2006. The final EIR was completed on December 5, 2006. 6. By decision dated January 17, 2007, respondent certified the adequacy of the EIR

under CEQA (Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177). On that same date, respondent
23 24 25 26 27 28 -2FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

approved and adopted General Plan Amendment 05-11-74 Plan (SP), Specific Plan 05-11-16, Tentative Tract Map 34485 (TM 06-10-447) and Tentative Tract Map 35057, all pertaining to the Citrus Ranch development. 7. Petitioner, other agencies, interested groups, and individuals made oral and written

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9

comments on the draft EIR and its findings, and raised each of the legal deficiencies asserted in this petition. 8. Petitioner performed all conditions precedent to filing this action by complying

with the requirements of Public Resources Code section 21167.5 in serving notice of this action on February 16, 2007. 9. Real party in interest is threatening to proceed with construction of the project in

the near future. Construction and operation of the project will irreparably harm the environment in that the EIR contemplates that water will be supplied from a groundwater basin that is currently in overdraft. Petitioner has adopted a Water Management Plan for said groundwater basin; the Water Management Plan does not contemplate the demand generated by the Citrus Ranch project. 10. Respondent's actions in certifying the EIR and adopting findings constitute a

10 11

prejudicial abuse of discretion in that respondent failed to proceed in the manner required by law and its decision is not supported by substantial evidence as follows: (a) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-3FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

The EIR fails to evaluate the project's significant impacts on the existing overdraft

condition in the Coachella Valley and on groundwater quality as a result of the project's additional demand. (b) The EIR fails to describe and evaluate reasonable mitigation measures that could

eliminate or substantially lessen significant environmental impacts of the project, including supplying the project with onsite wells and treatment facilities in conjunction with recharge facilities to provide a source of supply for the onsite wells, purchasing State Water Project entitlements, and participation in CVWD's Supplemental Water Supply Charges for CVWD's ongoing groundwater recharge efforts. (c) The EIR fails to describe and evaluate potential secondary impacts of the project,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

including subsidence and water quality degradation throughout the basin caused by further overdraft of the basin. (d) The DR fails to adequately respond to comments on the draft E1R, including

comments regarding the reliance on water supplies identified in Petitioner's Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (WMP), which did not consider demands for the Citrus Ranch project, and comments that the EIR contains technical inaccuracies regarding the sources of water. (e) Respondent failed to adopt legally adequate findings as required by law in that it

wholly failed to consider or discuss the existing state of overdraft, the potential impacts that the 10 11
A1 0

project's additional demand would have on groundwater quantity, groundwater quality, and land subsidence, and reasonable mitigation measures to eliminate or substantially lessen those environmental impacts. 11. Respondent thereby violated its duties to certify an EIR and adopt findings

12 Na
O 0)

LL id W W

W W

01 0

13

ty , a 14 "

44 a ei
I

LT. 0 z

g
4 J W0

15 conforming to the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, respondent's certification of the EIR, adoption of Amendment to the General Plan 05-11-74 (SP), adoption of Specific Plan 05-11-16, adoption of Tentative Tract Map 34485 (TM 06-10-447) and adoption of Tentative Tract Map 35057, all must be set aside. WHEREFORE, petitioner demands entry of judgment as follows: 1. For a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining real party

T, 4W ap O -I a ;z I 16

.C4 r21 1

W ZW Fc

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

in interest from taking any action to carry out the project pending trial. 2. For a peremptory writ of mandate directing: (a) Respondent to vacate and set aside its certification of the EIR, its adoption of Amendment to the General Plan 05-11-74 (SP), adoption of Specific Plan 05-1116, adoption of Tentative Tract Map 34485 (TM 06-10-447) and adoption of

-4FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

1 2

Tentative Tract Map 35057 (b) Respondent and real party in interest to suspend all activity under the

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 project. 10 11 12 13 14 15 3. 4. 5. For its costs of suit. For an award of attorney fees. For other equitable or legal relief that the Court considers just and proper. , 2007 REDWINE AND SHERRILL certification and project approvals that could result in any change or alteration in the physical environment until respondent has taken actions that may be necessary to bring the certification and approvals into compliance with CEQA. (c) Respondent to prepare, circulate and consider a new and legally adequate EIR and otherwise to comply with CEQA in any subsequent action taken to approve the

Date: February

411%,
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B:

sir
Attorneys for Petitioner, COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

fiFiatina K. Strong

-5FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE