December 29, 2008
California Environmental Quality Act, Contra Costa County, CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Vol. 24 No. 01 Jan 2009
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. The court ruled that opponents of Davidon Homes' plan to build 22 single-family houses on the 15-acre Weber Ranch may press forward with their appeal of the trial court's ruling.
The Town of Danville approved the housing development in 2007 based on a mitigated negative declaration that said all significant environmental impacts would be fully offset. A group called Citizens for Civic Accountability sued, arguing the city needed to further study impacts on roads, red-legged frog habitat and scenic views. The group insisted the city should prepare an environmental impact report.
Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge David Flinn ruled for the city but did insist on further study of the impacts of removing 120 trees from the site. The clerk of the court then sent the parties an email advising them that the judgment had been authorized for filing on April 1, 2008. On April 10, Citizens served a "notice of entry of judgment" and on June 9 filed an appeal.
The city and Davidon Homes contended the appeal was too late because the 60-day deadline started to run with the April 1 email notification. The First District, however, said an email did not suffice under California Rules of the Court rule 8.104(a). That rule requires filing a notice of appeal within "60 days after the superior court clerk mails the party filing the notice of appeal a … file-stamped copy of the judgment."
The city and Davidon Homes argued the terms "mail" and "email" were essentially the same here. The court disagreed. "[B]ecause rule 8.104(a) must be strictly construed to preserve the right to appeal when possible without doing violence to the language of the rule, ‘mail' must be construed according to its primary meaning to be limited to postal delivery," the court ruled.
The Case:
Citizens for Civic Accountability v. Town of Danville, No. A121899, 08 C.D.O.S. 13565, 2008 DJDAR 16254. The opinion was filed October 27, 2008.
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.
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."
A state appellate court has upheld a Santa Clara Valley Water District rate increase as exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, rejecting multiple arguments from a retail water company that the increase was subject to environmental review.