Opponents of a proposed power plant in San Jose have lost an attempt to get their arguments heard in court.
The Third District Court of Appeal ruled that project opponents could not bring a case in Superior Court because the California Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to review power plant certification decisions by the state Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission. The fact that the Supreme Court rejected the opponents' lawsuit without reviewing the record did not matter, the Third District held.
The case stemmed from the Energy Commission's approval in September 2001 of Calpine Corporation's proposal to build a 600-megawatt power plant in San Jose's Coyote Valley (see CP&DR In Brief, October 2001; CP&DR July 2001, March 2001). In December 2001, project opponents simultaneously filed lawsuits at the state Supreme Court and in Sacramento County Superior Court. The lawsuits argued that the Energy Commission had violated opponents' due process rights by failing to provide a fair hearing, violated the public trust doctrine of the state constitution, and violated the U.S. constitution's supremacy clause because the proposal conflicted with federal air quality regulations.
Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian dismissed the lawsuit, concluding only the state Supreme Court had jurisdiction under a law approved in 2001 (Public Resources Code ยง 25531). Five days later, the Supreme Court summarily denied the opponent's petition for a hearing.
Opponents appealed Judge Ohanesian's decision. They conceded the statute required them to seek relief in the Supreme Court, but they argued that the Superior Court had jurisdiction to consider the case because the Supreme Court had ruled summarily. They contended their constitutional claims had to be heard somewhere.
But the unanimous three-judge panel of the Third District ruled that the state Supreme Court's summary ruling was all the opponents were going to get.
"The flaw in [opponents'] argument is plaintiff's assumption that the Supreme Court failed to conduct any substantive review of their constitutional claims when the court summarily denied their petition for a writ of mandate. This assumption is unwarranted," Justice Ronald Robie wrote for the court.
"If a writ petition in the California Supreme Court is the exclusive means of obtaining review of a quasi-judicial decision, the Supreme Court's summary denial of such a petition is a final judicial determination on the merits," Robie continued.
Robie cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Napa Valley Elec. Co. v. Railroad Commission, (1920) 251 U.S. 366. That case stood for the proposition that judicial review on the merits may occur without a review of the evidentiary record, Robie wrote.
For the same reason, the court rejected the opponents' argument that the Superior Court's unwillingness to review the actions of an executive branch agency was a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. "Plaintiffs constitutional claims were judicially reviewed on the merits by the California Supreme Court," Robie concluded.
The Case:
Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. California Energy Commission, No. C041090, 03 C.D.O.S. 1115, 2003 DJDAR 1407. Filed February 5, 2003.
The Lawyers:
For Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group: Stephan Volker, (510) 496-0600.
For the commission: William Chamberlain, CEC, (415) 654-3951.
For Calpine: Jeffrey D. Harris, Ellison, Schneider & Harris, (916) 447-2166.
The owners of apartment buildings in the City of West Hollywood cannot avoid the city's rent control ordinance by relying on 1980s-era approvals to convert the buildings to condominiums, an appellate court has ruled.
The owner of a business that spreads sludge from wastewater treatment plants on fields in Kings County has taken a beating in court over a lawsuit that claimed the county could not exempt an ordinance regulating sewage sludge disposal from environmental review.
In upholding a decision by Kings County Superior Court Judge Peter Schultz, the Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled that Shaen Magan failed to present any evidence to support his claim that the ordinance was not categorically exempt from the Ca
The value of property being taken by eminent domain cannot be based on the property's zoning if the same entity that is taking the property also imposed the zoning, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
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.
The City of Claremont's moratorium on dispensaries of medical marijuana and a Superior Court injunction shuttering a dispensary have been upheld by the Second District Court of Appeal.