The state Supreme Court has accepted for review two land use cases in which appellate courts limited the jurisdiction of state officials. One case involved the Coastal Commission and the other concerned the director of the Department of Conservation.
In the Coastal Commission case, the First District Court of Appeal ruled that the state panel did not have authority to consider the environmental impacts to areas inside the coastal zone caused by a development proposed outside the coastal zone.
The project involved was a 114-house subdivision in the Playa del Rey area of Los Angeles proposed by Catellus Residential Group. On appeal from environmentalists, the Coastal Commission approved the project, in which only a road to the houses would be built in the coastal zone and all houses would be built outside the coastal zone. Environmentalists sued, contending the Coastal Commission should have considered the impact of the houses on nearby coastal wetlands. But a San Francisco Superior Court and the First District ruled that the Coastal Commission's jurisdiction ends at the boundary for the coastal zone.
"Consideration of environmental impacts originating outside the coastal zone is the responsibility of the local agency with authority over their point of origin — here, the city. It is not the responsibility of the Commission," the appellate court ruled.
The court also ruled that the Coastal Commission could adopt findings for its decision five months after voting for the project because the Commission explained its reasoning at the time of the vote. Environmentalists contended this amounted to after-the-fact rationalization, which the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) forbids.
The case is Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission, No. S116081 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, June 2003).
The second case involved two quarries in El Dorado County. The surface mines had been operating without permits or financial assurance of reclamation for years. After prodding from the state, the county approved mitigated negative declarations, reclamation plans and financial assurances for the mines in 1997.
The director of the Department of Conservation sued the county and the miner, contending that the plans approved by the county violated the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and that the mitigated negative declarations did not satisfy CEQA. An El Dorado County Superior Court ruled that only the State Mining and Geology Board — and not the department's appointed director — could take legal action against the county and the miner. The court also awarded about $500,000 in attorneys' fees to the county, the miner and trade associations that intervened in the case.
A Third District Court of Appeal panel voted 2-1 to uphold the lower court.
"SMARA gives the Board, not the director, the role of oversight over lead agencies," the majority ruled. "[I]f he believes the lead agency is approving reclamation plans that do not comply with SMARA, his remedy is to take his concerns to the Board," not to file a lawsuit.
One justice dissented, saying SMARA does not limit the director's authority in the way the majority stated.
The majority, however, overturned the lower court's award of attorneys' fees because dismissal of the lawsuit failed to "effectuate a significant public policy" — the standard required for awarding fees in such a case.
The state Supreme Court said it would review only the issue of whether the director had the right to seek court relief for the county's alleged violations of SMARA and CEQA. The high court deferred consideration of the attorneys' fees question until the court decides a related case.
The case is Department of Conservation v. El Dorado County, No. S116870.
In a lawsuit over the siting of a Seattle area transit line, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a Department of Transportation environmental justice regulation cannot be enforced in court under the Federal Civil Rights Act.
A Huntington Beach property tax override intended to fund employee retirement benefits violated Proposition 13, a divided Fourth District Court of Appeal panel has ruled. The court majority held that the tax override approved by voters in 1978 allowed the city to assess property owners only for retirement benefits offered at that time � and not for increased benefits the city had given to employees since.
A developer's allegation that a City of San Dimas general plan amendment was an unconstitutional taking has been rejected by the Second District Court of Appeal.
The importance of a complete and clear administrative record for development projects came to the forefront in a case from Merced County in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal overturned approval of a gravel mine because the administrative record was muddled. The court said it could discern little from the administrative record and, therefore, could not uphold the project's environmental impact report.
An appellate court has overturned a Superior Court decision requiring the City of Escondido to reimburse the city redevelopment agency's housing fund for 13 years worth of underpayments. The appellate panel instead ruled that, because of the statute of limitations, the city had to reimburse the housing fund for only three years worth of underpayments.
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.