• Skip to main content
  • Home
  • Contact
  • About
  • Search
    • Search US
    • Search Global
  • Global Litigation
  • U.S. Litigation

Inland Oversight Committee v. City of Chino

Filing Date: 2015
Case Categories:
  • State Law Claims
    • State Impact Assessment Laws
Principal Laws:
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Local Zoning Codes
Description: Challenge to City approvals for development of a recreational vehicle storage facility.
  • Inland Oversight Committee v. City of Chino
    Docket number(s): CIVDS1501357
    Court/Admin Entity: Cal. Super. Ct.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    10/31/2016 Ruling Petition for writ of mandate granted in part. The California Superior Court ruled that the City of Chino abused its discretion by making the determination, without the support of substantial evidence, that a recreational vehicle storage facility's air quality impacts would be less than significant. The court found that the environmental impact report's (EIR's) conclusion that the air quality and climate change impacts would be less than significant was not supported by substantial evidence, and that the failure to establish the methodology and assumptions used to reach this conclusion left an analytical gap that deprived the EIR of is sufficiency as an informational document. Due in part to the shortcomings in the air quality and climate change analysis, the City also failed to fulfill the requirement under the Chino Municipal Code of finding that the proposed general plan amendment and specific plan amendment would “not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city.”
    07/14/2015 Petition for Writ of Mandate Download First amended petition for writ of mandate filed.

© 2022 · Sabin Center for Climate Change Law · U.S. Litigation Chart made in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

The materials on this website are intended to provide a general summary of the law and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.