The federal government's review of potential impacts of a new public clubhouse at the Presidio Golf Course was adequate under both federal environmental and historic preservation laws, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. The federal analysis had been challenged by the Presidio Golf Club, a century-old private golf club which owns an historic clubhouse adjacent to the Presidio.
A predecessor to the Presidio Golf Club built the golf course on the grounds of the Presidio in 1895, as well as a private clubhouse on land adjacent to the Presidio. For many years, military officers were permitted to join the club at discounted rates and use its facilities, but in the 1950s the Army built its own clubhouse facilities on Presidio land near the private clubhouse. Military personnel and Presidio Golf Club members enjoyed exclusive use of the golf course until the Presidio was de-commissioned in 1994. After the Presidio was transferred to the National Park Service in 1995, the Park Service contracted with Arnold Palmer Golf Management Co. to manage the course and open it to the public. Among other things, Presidio Golf Club members lost their preferential tee times, which apparently reduced the value of club membership.
In 1996, the Park Service issued an environmental assessment on a proposal to demolish the Army golf course facilities and replace them with a new 6,000-square-foot public clubhouse. The Presidio Golf Club sued, claiming that that the EA did not adequately consider the potential impact of the new public clubhouse on the old private clubhouse, and that the Park Service did not comply with the National Historic Preservation Act by failing to consider whether the construction of the new clubhouse would lead to neglect and destruction of the old private clubhouse. The club's lawyers asserted that the club had already lost half of its membership because of the new public use rules and that the club's ability to remain financially viable is questionable.
While conceding that the old private clubhouse is eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, the Ninth Circuit concluded that analysis of environmental impact and impact on historic resources was adequate.
In a lengthy section of the opinion, the three-judge panel concluded that Presidio Golf Club does have standing to bring the lawsuit because "while it is a close question, the injury asserted by the Club is fairly traceable to the building of the public clubhouse," and because the club's interest is "arguably within the zone of interests to be protected under NEPA and NHPA".
However, the court found the federal government's environmental assessment to be adequate. Among other things, the club argued that the EA was inadequate because it did not consider the possibility of cooperative use of the old clubhouse. The Ninth Circuit bought the Park Service's argument that the private clubhouse would likely be too small to accommodate additional demand and also noted that the because the club had long expressed a wish to remain private the Park Service could reasonably expect that the club would not be receptive to cooperative use.
The Ninth Circuit also rejected a long series of complaints by the club claiming that the EA was inadequate, including the allegation that the Park Service failed to take into account "reasonably foreseeable effects" of the new clubhouse. The EA noted that the new clubhouse would not compete with the old clubhouse because "it would not duplicate the private PGC clubhouse in function. Indeed, its function would be the polar opposite" - meaning it would be public rather than private.
Concluded the Ninth Circuit: "While we have found an adequate string of causation necessary to confer standing, it does not necessarily follow that such a highly attenuated chain of causation as the Club alleges would lead to injuries cognizable under NEPA." Regarding NHPA, the court concluded that the Park Service was required to take the views of interested parties into account but nothing more. Thus, the court accepted as adequate the Park Service's conclusion that because the two clubhouses would not compete the historic clubhouse would not be endangered.
The Case:
Presidio Golf Course v. National Park Service, No. 97-16703, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10104 (filed September 21, 1998).
The Lawyers:
Nicholas C. Yost, Sonnenschein, Nash & Rosenthal, (415) 882-2440.
Ronald M. Spritzer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
Federal law pre-empts state and local power to independently review the environmental impact and land-use consequences of construction projects dealing with railroads, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the King County, the City of Auburn, and several other local governments in the State of Washington can't undertake their own environmental review of the federal Surface Transportation Board's decision to permit reopening of the S...
In the latest skirmish in a longrunning battle, an appellate court has overturned a trial judge's decision to strike down the City of Watsonville's decision to "pre-zone" and annex 216 acres of land in a disputed agricultural and coastal area west of Highway 1. If it is eventually published, the court ruling could be an important step in establishing the credibility of "tiered" environmental impact reports.
The unpublished ruling by the Sixth District Court of Appeal in San Jose gives Watso...
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the federal government's decision to issue five broad-ranging "general permits" allowing the filling of wetlands as part of the Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan. The general permits had been challenged by several environmental groups in Alaska, which charged that they covered too diverse a range of activities and would not result in "minimal" disruption of the environment, as the federal government claimed.
The five permits, which covered projec...
The Fifth District Court of Appeal has concluded that Fresno County did have the right to pursue eminent domain proceedings in order to obtain an easement across private land required to prevent another property from being rendered landlocked by another condemnation proceeding.
The case began when the county constructed a wastewater treatment facility on land adjacent to property owned by the Donleavey family. The Donleaveys filed an inverse condemnation action. In a proposed settlement agreement...
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.
In the first decision of its kind, a divided Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel has declared that the City of Goleta's mobile home rent control ordinance constitutes a regulatory taking.
