An appellate court has ruled against environmentalists in a California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit because the project in question was not approved and because environmentalists did not exhaust their administrative remedies.
In a peculiar case from Rancho Cucamonga, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, ruled that the lawsuit brought by opponents of a 40-home subdivision was moot because the city denied the developer's design review application for a previously approved subdivision. However, recognizing that the controversy could continue, the court still addressed the merits of the case. That is when the court nailed environmentalists for raising issues on appeal that had not been fully aired before the City Council or trial court.
The controversy involved 25 acres in Haven View Estates, a gated community in the western San Bernardino County city of Rancho Cucamonga. In 1990, the city approved a negative declaration and a tentative map with extensive flood control conditions. No one challenged the negative declaration or the map.
Seven years later, a new developer, Lauren Development, Inc., submitted a design review application for 40 homes on the site. The Planning Commission approved the application in July 1997. But Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion (CURE) appealed to the City Council. The group argued that the city should prepare a supplemental environmental impact report because there was new information regarding on-site habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher, which was listed as "threatened" under the federal Endangered Species Act in 1993.
In September 1997, the City Council denied the developer's design review application and declared that no further environmental review was required. The following month, CURE filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.
San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Frederick Mandabach ruled for the city. On appeal, CURE argued that "new information of substantial importance" arose after the city adopted the negative declaration, warranting further environmental review.
But the court sided with the city, which argued that because it did not grant the discretionary approval sought by the developer, further environmental review was unnecessary. "Because the city denied Lauren's design review application which prompted CURE's request for an SEIR, the City was not required to prepare an EIR," Justice James Ward wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. Thus, the lawsuit should be dismissed as moot, the court ruled.
Recognizing that development pressures would remain, the court addressed CURE's lawsuit anyway. Environmentalists had argued before the City Council and the trial court that additional review was needed of impacts on Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, which provides habitat for the gnatcatcher. But on appeal, CURE focused on impacts to coastal sage scrub (CSS), which also provides habitat for the rare bird. The city contended that CURE had never previously mentioned coastal sage scrub, so it could not raise that issue now. Environmentalists argued they had raised habitat issues sufficiently. The court sided with the city.
"Contrary to CURE's contention that the CSS habitat was sufficiently argued below, the general references to the laws pertaining to conservation of endangered species' habitats were far too general and vague to call specific attention to the alleged loss of CSS habitat. General comments made at public hearings cannot satisfy the exhaustion doctrine," Ward wrote.
In an unpublished portion of the opinion, the court held that substantial evidence supported the city's decision against CURE's request for supplemental environmental review regarding seismic stability, potential flooding and slope stability.
The Case:
Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga, No. E024244, 00 C.D.O.S. 6102, 2000 Daily Journal 8059, filed July 20, 2000.
The Lawyers:
For CURE: Craig Sherman, (619) 702-7892.
For the city: James Markman, Richards, Watson & Gershon, (714) 990-0901.
A sharply divided three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld an environmental impact statement prepared for expansion of the Kahului Airport in Maui, Hawaii. The court majority ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration had taken the "hard look" at the project's impact on native habitat required by the National Environmental Policy Act, while a dissenting judge called the FAA's study inadequate and deceptive.
The FAA and the Hawaii Department of Transportation proposed repa...
Property rights advocates won a potentially far-reaching victory with a First District Court of Appeals ruling regarding San Francisco's hotel conversion ordinance. In a takings lawsuit filed by a hotel owner, the court held that the "heightened scrutiny" test applies to the San Francisco law, meaning there must be a close relationship between the exaction and the project's impact.
The court ruled that the lawsuit filed by owners of the San Remo Hotel should proceed in trial court. The hotel owners ar...
In a major victory for developers of Playa Vista, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has reinstated an Army Corps of Engineers permit to fill 16 acres of wetlands. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel overturned a district court ruling that the Corps did not adequately consider environmental impacts of the overall project.
The Ninth Circuit held that the Corps did not need to complete an environmental impact statement and that the Corps was correct to review only the wetlands portion o...
In an important water rights ruling, the state Supreme Court has held that farmers' long-standing water rights superceded water claims by downstream cities. The unanimous court ruled in favor of seven alfalfa and dairy farmers in the Mojave Valley that had refused to join a pact that allocated water to more than 200 farmers, cities and other entities without regard to historical water rights. "This preserves the farmers' position at basically the top of the water chain," Robert Dougherty, t...
The State Supreme Court decertified a Second District Court of Appeal opinion that overturned portions of Santa Monica's rent control law.
The appellate court ruled that Santa Monica could not modify conditions established by state law under which landlords can increase rents for voluntarily vacated units. The court also held that the city cannot demand more information than state law requires when registering rent-controlled units. (See CP&DR Legal Digest, June 2000.)
In reviewing the Cos...
Claims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit.
The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law "plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court."
A state appellate court has upheld the California Coastal Commission's denial of a development permit for a small mixed-use project in Morro Bay.
The court rejected developer Dan Reddell's arguments that the commission violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that its decision was a regulatory taking of property. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that substantial evidence supported the commission's finding that Reddell's project was inconsistent with Morro Bay's local coastal plan (LCP).
A state appellate court has thrown out an Inyo County general plan amendment that the county argued was nothing more than a clarification of a longstanding policy.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, concluded that the amendment was more than a mere clarification and that the county should have completed an environmental impact report before approving the amendment.
A City of West Hollywood moratorium on new multi-family housing development has been declared invalid by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the city had not made required findings for the moratorium.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set back a plan to develop the country's largest solid waste landfill near Joshua Tree National Park. The court ruled that the environmental analysis for the project was inadequate and that the Bureau of Land Management undervalued land it would provide to the landfill developer.
A state appellate court has struck down a California Environmental Quality Act exemption for an air district rule permitting new power plants to offset emissions by paving roads. The court found that the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District did not have adequate evidence to support its finding that the rule could not have a negative impact on the environment.
A developer is not entitled to reimbursement or damages from a consultant hired by a local government to complete an environmental impact report, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. Even when the consultant fails to complete an EIR in a timely manner, the consultant owes no contractual duty to the developer that paid for the consultant, the court concluded.
