Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo
Decision Date | 13 September 1985 |
Citation | 172 Cal.App.3d 151,217 Cal.Rptr. 893 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SENSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF BISHOP AREA, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF INYO, et al., Defendants and Respondents, CRUMPLER AND KRUGER COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE, INC., et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. E001138, E001340. |
Plaintiffs, Citizens Association for Sensible Development of Bishop Area, et al. (Citizens), appeal from judgments denying its petitions for injunctive relief and for a writ of mandate setting aside and vacating two actions of the Inyo County Board of Supervisors (Board or Board of Supervisors), to wit: (1) the December 6, 1983 action approving Bishop general plan amendments 83-10 and 83-11, zoning reclassification 83-23, and two negative declarations in support of these actions, and (2) the March 6, 1984 action approving tentative tract map 188, road abandonment 83.2, variance 83.4A, and a negative declaration in support of the tentative tract map and road abandonment. On appeal plaintiffs contend that an adequate environmental review pursuant to the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) was not conducted.
On or about September 27, 1983, Crumpler and Kruger Commercial Real Estate, Inc. (Crumpler and Kruger, Inc.), as the buyer in escrow of property located on the north side of U.S. Route 395 east of Barlow Lane in Bishop, California, filed an application with the County of Inyo for approval of a proposed shopping center. The application described the proposed 9.1 acre shopping center as regionally oriented, with an area of 86,500 square feet, which was to be built in one phase. An additional expansion of 12,000 square feet was anticipated for the Safeway store already at the proposed shopping center location. The application also stated that Inyo County approval would be needed for a general plan amendment, rezoning, a street abandonment, new street alignments, and a zoning variance, and that Caltrans authorization would be needed for an encroachment permit. A transportation study was also filed.
In considering the proposed shopping center, the County of Inyo divided the required approvals, along with corresponding environmental review, into two groups. First, it considered Bishop general plan amendments 83-10 and 83-11 and zone reclassification 83-23, which were to redesignate 3.4 acres from office/professional and highway commercial to retail commercial and rezone from retail commercial/highway commercial to retail commercial. Second, it considered tentative tract map 188, which was to resubdivide 15 lots on 7 acres into 5 lots and realign portions of 4 streets, and road abandonment 83.2. The variance requested, although not subject to an environmental analysis, was also considered in this second grouping.
Beginning with the general plan amendments and zoning reclassification, the Inyo County Planning Department completed two initial environmental studies on October 5, 1983. The studies, which generally used a check list format, found no significant environmental effects, and recommended issuance of draft negative declarations, which were posted the next day. At the end of the 15 day review and comment period as provided in article 5.6, subdivision (c) of the Inyo County Procedures for Environmental Impact Review (now art. IX, subd. (c) ), the planning commission held a public hearing which culminated in its written recommendation that the board adopt the general plan amendments, zoning reclassification, and negative declarations. In the planning commission's discussion of its recommendation it expressly stated that traffic would be evaluated at the time the tentative tract map was submitted, as would the requirements for water, sewer, and fire protection. The recommendation was "formally appeal[ed]" by a letter signed by seven people and received on November 14, 1983. A subsequent letter to the Board detailed the concerns that 39 signers felt justified an environmental impact report (EIR); other letters in support and against the recommendations of the planning commission were also received.
Thereafter, on December 6, 1983, the Board held a public hearing at the end of which it decided to adopt all of the planning commission's recommendations regarding the shopping center project. Notices of determination indicating the adoption of the negative declarations were posted the next day. All plaintiffs except Citizens Association for Sensible Development of Bishop Area (Citizens Association) timely filed a writ of mandate with the trial court; Citizens Association was added as a party plaintiff by amendment to the writ after the statute of limitations had passed. This describes case No. E001138.
The second group of approvals followed a similar path as the first group, only starting a short time later. On December 7, 1983, the planning department completed an initial environmental study, again generally using a check list format, of tentative tract map 188 and road abandonment 83-2. This study also recommended issuance of a draft negative declaration. The planning commission adopted the tentative tract map, road abandonment and negative declaration as well as variance 83-4, on January 25, 1984. Twenty-one residents of Bishop appealed that decision, providing a lengthy statement of their reasons for that appeal.
The Board conducted a public hearing on March 6, 1984. It was advised by the planning commission that any discussion of the concurrent consideration of the general plan amendments and zoning reclassifications was irrelevant. At the end of the hearing the board of supervisors denied the appeal, with appropriate notices of determination following on May 14, 1984. All plaintiffs timely filed a second writ of mandate which was to become case No. E001340.
In both case No. E001138 and case No. E001340 the trial court denied any relief to the plaintiffs. Two appeals followed. Because of the similarity of the facts and issues in these two cases, this court ordered their consolidation prior to oral argument.
Defendants contend that none of the approximately 20 plaintiffs had standing to apply for writs of mandate. We disagree.
To have standing to apply for a writ of mandate a private citizen must be a "party beneficially interested." (Code Civ. Proc., § 1086.) Generally, a beneficial interest is established only when a plaintiff " '... has some private or particular interest to be subserved, or some particular right to be preserved or protected, independent of that which he holds with the public at large.' " (Kappadahl v. Alcan Pacific Co. (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 626, 643, 35 Cal.Rptr. 354, quoting 32 Cal.Jur.2d, Mandamus, § 55, p. 238, disapproved on other grounds in Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 517, fn. 16, 113 Cal.Rptr. 836, 522 P.2d 12.) However, where a public right is involved, and the object of the writ of mandate is to procure enforcement of a public duty, the plaintiff is not required to have any legal or special interest in the result; it is sufficient that as a citizen he is interested in having the public duty enforced. (Id., citing 35 Am.Jur. 73, § 320.) Accordingly, in a writ of mandate against a municipal entity based on alleged violations of CEQA, a property owner, taxpayer, or elector who establishes a geographical nexus with the site of the challenged project has standing. (32 Cal.Jur.2d, Mandamus, § 56, pp. 239-241; see Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 272, 118 Cal.Rptr. 249, 529 P.2d 1017; Scott v. City of Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541, 549, 99 Cal.Rptr. 745, 492 P.2d 1137. Moreover, the geographical nexus can be attenuated, for instance beyond the city limits, because "[e]ffects of environmental abuse are not contained by political lines." (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com., supra.)
Defendants' contention is that despite the ease of establishing standing in a case such as the instant one, plaintiffs have failed to do so. Defendants base this contention on (Lotus Car Ltd. v. Municipal Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 264, 270, 69 Cal.Rptr. 384. Real parties in interest assert that because their answer denied plaintiffs' allegations of standing, and plaintiffs never offered proof of this foundational fact, that plaintiffs' cause of action is fatally deficient in this regard.
In fact, some of the plaintiffs offered proof of their standing and others had their standing established by the first answer of defendants, who filed a separate answer from real parties in interest in each case. In case No. E001138 three parties, Mary Baker, Steve Votaw and Dwayne Wilson, testified as to their standing under oath before the Board. In addition, in case No. E001138 Ms. Baker and Mr. Votaw, as well as ten other plaintiffs (Russell Adams, Del Harper, Pauline Krueger, Don Lauria, Al Norris, Leslie Riccomini, Rodney Rusco, Dick Solesbee, Joe Wilkerson and Susan Wilson), had their standing established by the answer of defendants, which was filed two days after real parties in interest's less knowledgeable answer.
Moreover, the trial court appeared to have found that all plaintiffs had standing. During the hearing on case No. E001138 the court told plaintiffs' cou...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In Re Valley Health System
...Dist. v. City of Corona, 17 Cal.App.4th 985, 997, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 803 (1993) (quoting Citizens Ass'n for Sensible Dev. of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo, 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 162-63, 217 Cal.Rptr. 893 (1985)). “It is no hardship ... to require a layman to make known what facts are Citizens Ass......
-
County of Amador v. Water Agency
...dispute as to whether PG & E was, in fact, an indispensable party. (But see Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 161-162, 217 Cal.Rptr. 893.) 18. The Water Agency expressly distances itself from this 19. Although we agree with t......
-
Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano
...v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308, 248 Cal.Rptr. 352; Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 168-169, 217 Cal.Rptr. 893.) Instead, the FEIR properly commits the County to future EIRs in the event a specific fac......
-
Bowman v. City of Berkeley
...v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 882, 274 Cal.Rptr. 720 [noise]; Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 172, 217 Cal.Rptr. 893 [traffic].) However, a complex scientific issue such as the migration of chemicals thr......
-
Addressing the problem: the judicial branches
...of a proposed project. The relevant line of authority begins with Citizens Ass’n for Sensible Dev. of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo , 172 Cal. App. 3d 151 (Cal. App. Ct. 1985) ( Bishop ). There, the appellate court held that adoption of mul- 476 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: LEGAL THEORY AND PRACT......
-
Addressing The Problem: The Judicial Branches
...of a proposed project. The relevant line of authority begins with Citizens Ass’n for Sensible Dev. of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo , 172 Cal. App. 3d 151 (Cal. App. Ct. 1985) ( Bishop ). There, the appellate court held that adoption of multiple negative declarations for different aspects o......
-
Coming Full Circle in the Fifth—revisiting the Concept of "urban Decay" and Its Increasingly Limited Role in Ceqa
...project. The relevant line of authority begins with Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151 [("Bishop")]."15"There, the appellate court held that adoption of multiple negative declarations for different aspects of the same large reg......
-
Public Interest Standing Under Ceqa: Will We Ever Know What Types of 'urgent Considerations' Outweigh a Petitioner's Standing?
...Agency Formation Comm'n, 13 Cal.3d 263, 272 (1975) (Bozung); see also Citizens Ass'n for Sensible Dev. of Bishop Area v. Cnty. of Inyo, 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 158 (1985) (Citizens Ass'n for Sensible Dev. of Bishop Area) (citing Bozung).10. Citizens Ass'n for Sensible Dev. of Bishop Area, supra......
-
Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15003 Policies
...it will have a significant environmental effect. (Citizens Assoc. For Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151)(i) CEQA does not require technical perfection in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good-faith effort at full disclosure. A co......