The Fourth District Court of Appeal has thrown out a California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit filed by Riverside residents because of a procedural error.
Because Friends of Riverside's Hills brought California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) challenges along with allegations that the City of Riverside violated the Subdivision Map Act, the map act's requirement for service of a summons within 90 days of the city's decision applied. Friends argued they had to comply only with CEQA procedures, but the court disagreed and blocked the lawsuit.
Friends did successfully defend against a claim for millions of dollars in damages and sanctions sought by landowners, who argued the appeal was frivolous.
On June 13, 2006, the Riverside City Council accepted as complete final tract maps for three subdivisions in La Sierra, located in northwest Riverside. La Sierra has been the scene of growth battles since the 1970s as residents have fought to maintain the area's semi-rural nature. A month after the council's 2006 decision, Friends of Riverside's Hills sued, arguing the city had violated open space protections and mitigation measures required by a 1996 specific plan. The group also argued the city violated the map act.
On September 14, 2006, the city, the subdivision developers and the landowners asked the Riverside County Superior Court to dismiss the lawsuit because Friends had failed to serve a summons within 90 days of the City Council's decision. Riverside County Superior Court Judge Stephen Cunnison granted the request and dismissed the suit.
Friends appealed only the issue of the map act's procedural requirements to the CEQA claims. Friends argued that because the allegations of CEQA violations did not involve the map act, the 90-day deadline for service of a summons should not apply. But the court determined that the CEQA claims and the map act claims were essentially all the same and, therefore, the map act's procedural requirements applied.
"[T]he CEQA cause of action was merely another vehicle for challenging the city's failure to require the applicant to implement open space and other mitigation measures that were part of the project's conditions of approval and of the specific plan," Presiding Justice Manual Ramirez wrote for the Fourth District, Division Two. "Friends not only could have brought this claim under the SMA [subdivision map act] rather than CEQA, it in fact did."
While the appeal was pending, the landowners asked the court to sanction Friends because "any reasonable attorney would agree that the appeal is totally and completely without legal merit." The landowners sought $16 million for loss of market value, $403,000 for out-of-pocket expenses plus $1,248 every day since September 1, 2007, and $27,500 in attorney fees. The court rejected the request because such an award could chill litigants' right to appeal.
"Weighing the chilling effect of sanctions against the issues raised in this appeal, and finding that a reasonable attorney may well have believed the appeal had some merit, we conclude that sanctions are not justified," Justice Ramirez wrote.
The case is Friends of Riverside's Hills v. City of Riverside, No E042724, 08 C.D.O.S. 14458, 2008 DJDAR 17376. The opinion was filed October 24, 2008, and ordered published November 24, 2008.
Approval of an 88-acre warehouse distribution facility at March Air Reserve Base was exempt from environmental review because the project was included in a general plan and a specific plan, both of which received environmental analysis, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
An environmental impact report for a proposed quarry in Madera County has been thrown out by an appellate court, which found the document's consideration of water, traffic, noise and cumulative impacts to be inadequate. The court also determined a water supply assessment is needed for a mitigation measure that could require the quarry to connect surrounding property owners with a water system.
Sometimes, email is no substitute for snail mail. In a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) case from Contra Costa County, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled that notification of a trial court's judgment via email did not trigger the 60-day deadline for filing an appeal.
Agreements approved by Riverside County and cities in the Coachella Valley in support of a multiple species habitat conservation plan did not violate a political corruption law, according to the state attorney general's office.
An environmental impact report for a 560-housing unit specific plan in the Riverside County city of Beaumont has been upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The court approved the city's use of a baseline for examining water usage that was favorable to the developer, accepted the city's determination that loss of farmland could not be mitigated, and upheld the city's statement of overriding consideration for approving a project with significant environmental impacts.
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 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 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.
A city may determine that project alternatives once considered potentially feasible for California Environmental Quality Act analysis are infeasible as actual projects, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The City of Los Angeles had no obligation under the California Environmental Quality Act to complete an environmental impact report for a project that it had rejected, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The court dismissed all arguments put forward by the developer of the 555-acre Las Lomas project at the junction of Interstate 5 and Highway 14. "[I]f an agency at any time decides not to proceed with a project," the court said, "CEQA is inapplicable from that time forward."