logo
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Our Firm
    • Our People
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
  • Practice Areas
    • Environmental Law
    • Municipal & Public Agency Law
    • Clean Energy Law
    • Local Ballot Measures
    • Tribal Law
    • Litigation & Appeals
  • News
    • Updates and Articles
    • Where We Work
  • Legal Hiring
  • Contact Us
Search For

415-552-7272

logo
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Our Firm
    • Our People
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
  • Practice Areas
    • Environmental Law
    • Municipal & Public Agency Law
    • Clean Energy Law
    • Local Ballot Measures
    • Tribal Law
    • Litigation & Appeals
  • News
    • Updates and Articles
    • Where We Work
  • Legal Hiring
  • Contact Us
Search For

415-552-7272

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Our Firm
    • Our People
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
  • Practice Areas
    • Environmental Law
    • Municipal & Public Agency Law
    • Clean Energy Law
    • Local Ballot Measures
    • Tribal Law
    • Litigation & Appeals
  • News
    • Updates and Articles
    • Where We Work
  • Legal Hiring
  • Contact Us

San Diego Superior Court Ruling Stops Sprawl Development in Fire-Prone Area

October 28, 2021

Photo: Quino checkerspot butterfly

Earlier this month, the San Diego County Superior Court reversed San Diego County’s approval of the Otay Ranch Village 14 project, a proposed development that would have paved over critical wildlife habitat while building 1,100 homes on fire-prone land east of Chula Vista. In a consolidated cases brought by a coalition of environmental groups and the People of California, the court ruled that the county’s environmental analysis of the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 project failed to address and mitigate numerous concerns, including wildfire risk, climate impacts, threats to the endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly and other issues.

The proposed sprawl development would encompass more than 1,000 acres of wildlands in unincorporated San Diego County. The area has burned twice in 15 years, making it a particularly inappropriate place for high-intensity development. The court’s decision also cited the county’s failure to analyze the cumulative environmental impacts of the project on wildlife and climate change, and its failure to comply with its own general plan by not requiring affordable units in any of the planned 1,100 homes. 

Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, LLP represented the Endangered Habitats League and California Native Plant Society in the lawsuit. The ruling also responded to related lawsuits filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, Preserve Wild Santee and the California Chaparral Institute. California Attorney General Rob Bonta also joined the case on behalf of the State of California. 

 

 

Tags:
Environmental Justice Environmental Law Housing
SMW Attorney Presents at the CLA Environment Law Section ConferencePrev
Settlement Reached with CSU-Long Beach Over Puvungna, Sacred Tribal LandNext
default logo

Counsel and representation in government, land use, renewable energy, and environmental legal matters for public agencies, non-profits, tribes, and community groups.

Quick Links

  • Our Firm
  • Our People
  • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
  • News
  • Legal Hiring
  • Contact Us
  • Celebrating 40 Years
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Use
  • Opt-out preferences

Practice Areas

  • Environmental Law
  • Municipal and Public Agency Law
  • Clean Energy Law
  • Local Ballot Measures
  • Tribal Law
  • Litigation and Appeals

Office

Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP

396 Hayes Street

San Francisco, CA 94102

By Phone: (415) 552-7272

By Email: info@smwlaw.com

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
DEI Seal

© 2025 Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, All Rights Reserved

Manage Cookie Consent
We use cookies to optimize our website and our service.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
Preferences
{title} {title} {title}