RE:RE:RE:Blizzy Uggh I'll admit your relentless blathering got me to google some stuff and go to the courts etc no filing from todays ruling but the questions asked by the judge were posted on the 2nd ....
The Court issues this minute order in lieu of a substantive tentative ruling. Counsel are
directed to appear at the hearing on the merits. There is no need to request a hearing pursuant to
the usual tentative ruling procedures. Counsel will, of course, have the latitude to address the
points they believe are most important to their respective positions. The Court asks that counsel
be prepared to address the following issues in particular:
1. How does the EIR in this case meet the requirements stated in Vineyard Area Citizens for
Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 430-431,
that the EIR:
(1) cannot ignore or assume a solution to the problem of supplying water but must
contain sufficient facts to evaluate the pros and cons of supplying the amount of water
the project will need;
(2) cannot limit its analysis to the water supply needed for the first stage or the first
few years of a large project that will be built and occupied over a number of years;
2
(3) must identify and analyze future water supplies that bear a likelihood of actually
proving available rather than being speculative or unrealistic (i.e. “paper water”) and
include a reasoned analysis of the circumstances affecting the likelihood of the
water’s availability; and
(4) if future sources are uncertain, must discuss possible replacement sources or
alternatives to use of the anticipated water, and of the environmental consequences of
those contingencies, rather than simply providing that future development will not
proceed if the anticipated water supply fails to materialize.
2. Did the EIR adequately evaluate the developer’s purported agreement to purchase
groundwater rights from a third party (AR 3275) and the purported commitment of those
rights for the project (AR 3294)? What is the significance, if any, of the fact that those
documents materialized in August 2021 after the final EIR was issued July 2021?
3. Does the analysis of the EIR with respect to water supply in Cherry Valley Pass Acres &
Neighbors v. City of Beaumont (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 316, 340-347, have any
applicability in this case?
4. Did the EIR properly identify and analyze reasonable mitigation measures, and is any
mitigation measure other than Mitigation Measure HYD-3 being challenged?
5. Did the EIR properly identify and analyze reasonable project alternatives?
6. Did the EIR fail to comply with the Water Code and the Government Code? Which
particular sections and subdivisions are at issue?