An appellate court has ruled against a citizens group that had protested Placer County's handling of an application for a 22-unit lodge at Lake Tahoe. The Third District Court of Appeal ruled that the citizens group had no standing to bring a lawsuit based on alleged violations of the California Environmental Quality Act because the group did not seek county Board of Supervisors' review of the negative declaration approved by the Planning Commission.
The unanimous three-judge panel rejected the argument that raising CEQA issues during the Planning Commission hearing was adequate to preserve judicial standing. The court also held that the CEQA issue was never properly before the Board of Supervisors even though a staff report to board — which considered an appeal of parking requirements for the lodge — referred to the negative declaration and supervisors adopted the negative declaration.
In late 1997, the owners of Vista Shores Resort on Highway 28 along the northwest shore of Lake Tahoe applied for a conditional use permit to redevelop their property. The owners sought permission to replace an eight-unit motel with a two-story, 22-unit lodge of mostly two- and three-bedroom units.
In June 1998, the Placer County Planning Commission approved a negative declaration and conditional use permit for the project. Neighboring property owners Larry and Sharon Kramer immediately filed an appeal with the Board of Supervisors, claiming that the 26 proposed parking spaces were inadequate.
The Board of Supervisors considered the appeal in August. The planning department's staff report said the appeal was "of the Planning Commission's action to approve a Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit. …The reason for the appeal was cited as insufficient parking on the site." During the appeal hearing, no one questioned the negative declaration. Supervisors decided to require 10 additional parking spaces but voted unanimously to deny the appeal, adopt the negative declaration and find that the project complied with a "parking demand table" approved by the county and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.
The Kramers and others then filed a lawsuit claiming that the county should have completed an EIR and that the project violated both the parking demand table and the North Tahoe Community Plan. Placer County Superior Court Judge James Garbolino found that the project opponents failed to exhaust their administrative remedy by not appealing the negative declaration to the Board of Supervisors. He also found that the project complied with parking requirements, and he issued summary judgement for the county.
On appeal, the project opponents argued that a section of CEQA (Public Resources Code §21177) does not require that every issue be raised at every hearing, or even at the final hearing, before a lawsuit is filed. They also said CEQA was in fact an issue before the Board of Supervisors.
The Third District disagreed. "[P]laintiffs appeal placed only the conditional use permit before the Board of Supervisors and only with regards to parking," Justice George Nicholson wrote. "The appeal form provided a specific notation by which plaintiffs could have appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the negative declaration, but plaintiffs did not specify they were appealing the Planning Commission's decision on that point. Such a failure to raise an issue in an administrative appeal after raising the issue in the first public or administrative hearing constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies and prevents the issue from being raised in a subsequent judicial action."
The trial court should not review an issue that was not raised before the administrative body with final decision-making authority, the court held.
The appellate court also said the title of the staff report was irrelevant and that county code required the board to adopt "all findings necessary to implement its approval of the project," including the negative declaration.
In an unpublished portion of the opinion, the court held that "substantial evidence supports the County's finding that the project complied with the Parking Demand Table."
The Case:
Tahoe Vista Concerned Citizens v. County of Placer, No. C032876, 00 C.D.O.S. 4736, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R., 6273, filed June 13, 2000.
The Lawyers:
For Concerned Citizens: Rose Zoia, Brandt-Hawley & Zoia, (707) 938-3908.
For the county: Scott Finley, Placer County Counsel's office, (530) 889-4044.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal has overturned an award of nearly $300,000 in attorneys fees to groups that lost a case based on the California Environmental Quality Act. The Fourth District ruled that even though the groups felt obliged to pursue the lawsuit, which followed an earlier successful suit, they were not entitled to fees in the second lawsuit.
The case stems from Riverside County's approval of the giant Eagle Mountain landfill at a former iron-ore mine only 1.5 miles from Joshua...
Homeowners associations in the retirement community of Leisure World acted legally when they spent half a million dollars of homeowners assessments on an initiative campaign to halt a proposed airport, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The court cleared the political activity of the Golden Rain Foundation of Laguna Hills and three of its member homeowner associations. The groups provided $542,000 for Orange County's Measure S, a 1996 ballot initiative aimed at blocking development...
The Metropolitan Water District won a round of a lawsuit over the price it charges for conveying private transfers of water. A three-judge panel of the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Five, ruled that Metropolitan can include its capital investment and other system-wide costs when figuring the fee it charges for handling water transfers.
The appellate court overturned the decision of San Francisco Superior Court Judge Laurence Kay, who had ruled Metropolitan improperly included costs unrelat...
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had the authority to remove two dilapidated piers in Oakland Harbor to make room for port expansion, and then bill the pier owner for the removal, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
The Ninth Circuit made clear that the Corps of Engineers has broad authorities under the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. §403, and the Commerce Clause of the constitution. The ruling was another loss for the pier's owners, Alameda Gateway Ltd. ...
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Lake Tahoe landowners who claimed that temporary building moratoriums and regional land use plans amounted to unconstitutional takings of their property.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency was not liable for a taking when it imposed a 32-month building moratorium during the early 1980s. The court also held TRPA was not liable for a taking when a court blocked implementation of a 1984 Regional Plan. Finally, ...
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.
