Coal. for Agriculture's Future v. Canyon Cnty.

• Decision Date: 23 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 42756.,42756.
• Citation: 369 P.3d 920,160 Idaho 142
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: COALITION FOR AGRICULTURE'S FUTURE, an Idaho unincorporated nonprofit association, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CANYON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, and the Canyon County Board of Commissioners, Defendants–Respondents.

160 Idaho 142

369 P.3d 920

COALITION FOR AGRICULTURE'S FUTURE, an Idaho unincorporated nonprofit association, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.CANYON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, and the Canyon County Board of Commissioners, Defendants–Respondents.

No. 42756.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, February 2016 Term.

March 23, 2016.

Sawtooth Law Office, PLLC, Boise, for appellant. David P. Claiborne argued.

Borton Lakey Law Offices, Meridian, for respondents. Todd M. Lakey argued.

J. JONES, Chief Justice.

This is a declaratory relief action related to planning and zoning in Canyon County. Appellant Coalition for Agriculture's Future ("the Coalition") sued respondents Canyon County and the Canyon County Board of Commissioners (collectively "Canyon County under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act. The Coalition sought to invalidate Canyon County's 2011 comprehensive plan and amendments thereto for noncompliance with Idaho's Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA). The district court granted Canyon County's motion to dismiss the action for lack of standing. The Coalition appealed.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Because the district court dismissed the case pursuant to Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Coalition's factual allegations must be taken as true for the purpose of this appeal. Losser v. Bradstreet, 145 Idaho 670, 672–673, 183 P.3d 758, 760–761 (2008). Accordingly, the facts stated below are those alleged by the Coalition.

The Coalition is an unincorporated nonprofit association established to preserve and promote agricultural heritage by educating the public regarding threats to agricultural heritage, economies, and traditions that are posed by irresponsible urban development. Its members include natural persons residing and conducting business in Canyon County. In particular, its members include owners of real property and commercial seed growers in Canyon County.

Prior to May 2011, Canyon County conducted land use planning pursuant to its 2005 Canyon County Comprehensive Plan. On May 19, 2011, the Canyon County Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the adoption of the 2020 Canyon County Comprehensive Plan (the "2020 Plan") to the Canyon County Board of Commissioners. On May 31, 2011, Canyon County adopted Resolution No. 11–098, purporting to repeal the 2005 plan and adopt the 2020 Plan. Resolution No. 11–098 contained the 2020 Plan without any agricultural component and without any future land use map. Although the minutes from the meeting refer to a map, no future land use map was contained in the hearing file or attached to the 2020 Plan.

On August 3, 2011, Canyon County adopted Resolution No. 11–141, purporting to amend the 2020 Plan to include an agricultural component. No future land use map was attached to either the resolution or the amended comprehensive plan.

The Coalition alleges that since May 31, 2011, Canyon County has been making land use and zoning decisions based on a future land use map that was not officially adopted. The map Canyon County has been utilizing has been changed and modified, but not through the processes required by LLUPA. The unofficial map has been used by Canyon County to approve and allow the rezoning, reclassification, and development of agricultural land for residential uses. The unadopted and unofficial future land use map used by Canyon County since May 31, 2011, was based on "windshield surveys" of areas and expired conditional use permit approvals without adequate consideration of agricultural effects or the preservation of agricultural lands. Since July 1, 2011, Canyon County allegedly has not properly amended or modified any future land use map to reflect and incorporate the goals, policies, and implementation actions of the agricultural component of the 2020 Plan.

The Coalition further alleges that since August 3, 2011, Canyon County has failed to implement the goals, policies, and implementation actions of the agricultural component of the 2020 Plan to protect and preserve Canyon County's agricultural lands. Consequently, agricultural lands in Canyon County are allegedly being lost to residential development without consideration of Canyon County's stated goal to preserve and protect agricultural lands.

On July 17, 2013, Canyon County adopted Resolution No. 13–239 to amend the 2020 Plan, nunc pro tunc, to include a future land use map and other maps, purporting to correct the error of not including a future land use map with the May 31, 2011 and August 3, 2011 resolutions. The resolution purports to confirm the existence and use of a future land use map since May 31, 2011, despite the fact that no such map existed in the prior public record. The Coalition alleges that in May 2013 the official website for Canyon County included a future land use map that differs from the future land use map Canyon County actually used for land use planning since May 31, 2011.

The Coalition takes issue with Canyon County's alleged failure to comply with LLUPA. The Coalition sued, seeking entry of a declaratory judgment that Canyon County had not duly and properly adopted the 2020 Plan and, therefore, Canyon County's zoning ordinance enacted under that plan is invalid. The action also sought a declaration that all land use decisions made by Canyon County since May 31, 2011, are invalid and of no effect. Alternatively, the action sought an order restraining Canyon County from approving any rezoning of agricultural areas in Canyon County or otherwise approving the use of those areas designated as agricultural areas in the comprehensive plan for non-agricultural uses. The action did not challenge any specific land use decisions. Canyon County filed an answer, generally denying all claims and specifically alleging that the Coalition lacked standing to pursue its claims. Canyon County subsequently moved under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the action on the ground that the Coalition lacked standing.

Thereafter, the Coalition filed four affidavits sworn by individual Coalition members, generally detailing concerns about Canyon County's alleged spot zoning and the need for "isolation." Isolation is the practice of growing seed crops such as onions, sweet corn and popcorn physically separate and apart from differing varieties of the same species to avoid cross-pollination, a condition detrimental to quality seed production. Cross-pollination diminishes or eliminates the value of seed by making it unmarketable.

After conducting two hearings on the issue of standing, the district court entered an order granting Canyon County's motion to dismiss. In a later, amended order, the district court held that the Coalition failed to allege a concrete and palpable injury sufficient to form a basis for standing to seek declaratory relief. It further held that the relief requested would not prevent or redress the claimed injury. Finally, it held that even if the Coalition had alleged an adequate injury, any such injury was suffered alike by all Canyon County citizens and taxpayers so no standing existed. Accordingly, the district court entered a final judgment dismissing the Coalition's amended complaint. The Coalition timely appealed.

II.ISSUES ON APPEAL

1. Whether the district court erred in dismissing the Coalition's complaint for lack of standing.

2. Whether either party is entitled to attorney fees or costs on appeal.

III.STANDARD OF REVIEW

When this Court reviews an order dismissing an action pursuant to I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), we apply the same standard of review we apply to a motion for summary judgment. After viewing all facts and inferences from the record in favor of the non-moving party, the Court will ask whether a claim for relief has been stated. The issue is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether the party is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.

In addition, this Court reviews an appeal from an order of summary judgment de novo, and this Court's standard of review is the same as the standard used by the trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Ergo, a district court's dismissal of a complaint under I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) shall be reviewed de novo.

Taylor v. McNichols, 149 Idaho 826, 832, 243 P.3d 642, 648 (2010) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

IV.ANALYSIS

A. The district court did not err in dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.

Although the Coalition raises some concerns about the manner in which Canyon County handled the adoption of the 2020 Plan, that is not the focus of our inquiry.

The district court did not address the merits of the case, but held the Coalition lacked standing to seek judicial redress. "The doctrine of standing focuses on the party seeking relief and not on the issues the party wishes to have adjudicated." Miles v. Idaho Power Co., 116 Idaho 635, 641, 778 P.2d 757, 763 (1989).

"It is a fundamental tenet of American Jurisprudence that a person wishing to invoke a court's jurisdiction must have standing." Van Valkenburgh v. Citizens for Term Limits, 135 Idaho 121, 124, 15 P.3d 1129, 1132 (2000). In order to satisfy the requirement of standing, a petitioner must "allege or demonstrate an injury in fact and a substantial likelihood that the judicial relief requested will prevent or redress the claimed injury." Miles, 116 Idaho at 641, 778 P.2d at 763. Standing requires a showing of a distinct palpable injury and fairly traceable causal connection between the claimed injury and the challenged conduct. State v. Philip Morris, Inc., 158 Idaho 874, 881, 354 P.3d 187, 194 (2015). "This Court has defined palpable injury as an injury that is easily perceptible, manifest, or readily visible." Id. The injury cannot be "one suffered alike by all citizens in the jurisdiction." Troutner v. Kempthorne, 142 Idaho 389, 391, 128 P.3d 926, 928 (2006). There must be a fairly traceable causal connection between the claimed injury and the challenged conduct. Id. "An interest, as a...