Stahovich v. City of Anaheim
Defendants City of Anaheim (City) and City Council for the City of Anaheim (Council; collectively defendants) approved a residential infill project of 32 single family homes (Project) to be developed by real parties in interest Melia Homes, Inc. and Donovan Anaheim LLC (collectively real parties). Before approving it, defendants undertook an initial study and, finding the Project would not result in significant environmental effects, adopted a negative declaration. Plaintiff Arthur E. Stahovich, trustee of the Arthur E. and Marjorie L. Stahovich Family Trust (1986) filed a petition for writ of mandate and a complaint for declaratory relief alleging defendants violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.; all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated) because they failed to require an environmental impact report (EIR). He also alleged defendants violated the zoning requirements set out in the Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC). The trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants and real parties, and plaintiff appealed.
Plaintiff raises several issues, contending (1) there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument there may be significant environmental impacts on noise, land use and planning, drainage, and traffic, necessitating an EIR or, alternatively, a mitigated negative declaration; (2) defendants violated zoning laws by failing to require a noise study, exceeding the maximum density, and approving improper lot lines; and (3) the case is not moot. Plaintiff’s first two arguments have no merit, eliminating any need to rule on the mootness claim. We affirm.
After the opening brief was filed and simultaneously with the filing of the respondent’s brief, real parties filed a motion seeking to introduce additional evidence to support its claim the appeal was moot. They later filed a supplemental motion to introduce additional evidence. We decide the case on the merits, and, having no need for additional evidence, deny the motions.
Comments on Stahovich v. City of Anaheim