Children's Health Defense By
A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge delivered a split decision Wednesday in a lawsuit seeking to halt the fast-tracked proliferation of wireless infrastructure without environmental review and without residents’ right to appeal.
In his ruling, Judge James C. Chalfant dismissed claims that the ordinances violate due process rights by preventing residents from contesting individual wireless project permits near their homes. He also dismissed a minor claim about a bureaucratic procedure.
However, he allowed pivotal allegations that the county is illegally sidestepping state environmental law through its new rules for approving wireless infrastructure projects.
Because the ruling bars a sweeping countywide due process challenge, the plaintiffs say it places an impossible burden on individuals to fund separate cases for each wireless facility installed near their properties without notice.
With core issues still intact, the suit — filed by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and a coalition of community and environmental groups — proceeds to trial on March 12.
The coalition includes Fiber First LA, Mothers of East LA, Boyle Heights Community Partners, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, Union Binacional de Organizaciones de Trabajadores Mexicanos Ex Braceros 1942-1964, California Fires & Firefighters, Malibu For Safe Tech, EMF Safety Network, California for Safe Technology and 5G Free California.
On March 7, 2023, CHD and the coalition sued Los Angeles County after the county’s Board of Supervisors — despite prior public outcry — adopted amendments to title 16 and title 22 of the county code.
The lawsuit alleges the amendments violate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by exempting projects under the ordinances from CEQA review.
The lawsuit also initially claimed that the ordinances raised constitutional due process concerns with wireless projects that directly affect residents, who will suffer significant losses of personal and real property rights without the ability to contest. This is one of the claims Judge Chalfant struck from the suit.
Lawyers for Los Angeles County filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to disregard five of the plaintiffs’ eight claims.
W. Scott McCollough, attorney for the plaintiffs, told The Defender that while he was disappointed the judge allowed two of the plaintiffs’ claims to be removed, he was glad the judge did not dismiss most of the claims.
For example, the plaintiffs can still argue the county’s ordinances violate environmental impact law.
They also can argue that the county’s new way of dealing with wireless project applications — using what the county calls “ministerial review” — is little more than a meaningless “rubberstamping” process devoid of thoughtful decision-making, he said.
McCollough — chief litigator for CHD’s electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and wireless cases — also pointed out that Los Angeles County sought only to dismiss five of the plaintiffs’ eight claims because the county had “no viable legal argument” for dismissing the other three.
In other words, the county knew it didn’t have a strong argument for attempting to dismiss the case altogether, so it just tried to weaken the plaintiffs’ arguments.
“This was the fist fight right before kickoff,” McCollough said. “We got stung a little bit, but for the most part, the case goes forward. We’re hopeful of a successful outcome…
READ FULL ARTICLE HERE… (childrenshealthdefense.org)
Home | Caravan to Midnight (zutalk.com)
