The California Food and Agriculture Code’s nuisance protection law protects agricultural processing facilities established for more than three years in the same location from nuisance lawsuits, as long as the facility was not a nuisance at the time it began. A northern California rendering company has put the law to the test with successful results.
A lawsuit filed by the developers of a proposed 22,000-home subdivision to shut down nearby Sacramento Rendering Company (SRC), an 89-year-old, family-owned, operation that has been in the same location since 1956, has been tossed out of court. In late July, Superior Court Judge Loren E. McMaster dismissed the case filed against SRC by the developers of the Sunrise-Douglas project, which includes AKT Development Company, ruling that the case violated the law against so-called SLAPP suits – strategic lawsuits against public participation – which typically seek to punish defendants for speaking out against powerful interests. McMaster also dismissed a complaint by developers that the factory is a nuisance, stating that the company is covered under the 1999 state law.
The developers sued SRC for appearing before the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors in December to ask that the builders pay for equipment that would minimize odors coming from the plant. The suit alleged that comments made to the board by SRC President Michael Koewler violated a 1994 agreement to support SunRidge, the first phase of the project that includes 10,000 homes, in exchange for financial help improving odors. The rendering company and AKT Development have failed to reach an agreement for sharing the $3 million cost of new odor control equipment.
In the court ruling, McMaster said the 1994 agreement did not preclude Koewler from speaking at the board hearing about development beyond SunRidge in Sunrise-Douglas, adding that Koewler’s comments were protected by the First Amendment. Developers have stated they will appeal the decision.
Koewler said that he’s only interested in what is fair.
“We have never opposed development in the area,” Koewler said. “We have asked only that those who propose to bring in the houses and the people – and profit from that activity – bear the burden of making our operation totally compatible with such uses. After all, developers have to mitigate for their traffic impacts, their impacts on wetlands, water supply, and other natural and manmade conditions.
“In this case,” continued Koewler, “they even have to mitigate for possible problems due to their proximity to Mather Field [a commercial freight airfield]. Why are we any different? And yet, when we asked that question at the public hearing, the developers sued us and tried to put us out of business on the grounds that we are both a private and public nuisance.
“We are pleased that Judge McMaster upheld section 3482.6 of the Civil Code, which specifically prohibits a rendering plant from becoming a nuisance after it has been in continuous operation for more than three years – as long as it was not a nuisance at the time it began.”
The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors has approved the developers’ specific plan on terms that include a condition requiring mitigation of possible odor emissions from the rendering plant. Both the developers and SRC have approved the wording of the proposed condition, but who pays for the mitigation has not been decided and no houses can be built until the condition has been met.
Newsline - October 2002 Render