Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga
| Decision Date | 21 July 2009 |
| Docket Number | Nos. E042229,E044797.,E043925,s. E042229 |
| Citation | 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 813,175 Cal.App.4th 1306 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The HABITAT TRUST FOR WILDLIFE, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA et al., Defendants and Respondents; SPS Development Services, Inc. et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants, v. SPS Development Services Inc. et al., Defendants and Respondents Henderson Creek Properties, LLC, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent. |
The Law Office of Craig A. Sherman and Craig A. Sherman, San Diego, for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. and Spirit of the Sage Council, Inc.
Richards, Watson & Gershon, Mitchell E. Abbott and Ginetta L. Giovinco, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents City of Rancho Cucamonga and City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Alan J. Kessel, Keli N. Osaki, Costa Mesa; Law Offices of Judith B. Oakes and Judith B. Oakes, San Diego, for Defendant and Respondent SPS Development Services, Inc. and Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent Henderson Creek Properties, LLC.
Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus & Peckenpaugh, Michael L. Tidus, Irvine, and Daniel A. Friedlander, Westlake Village, for Defendants and Respondents Rancho 2004, LLC, Granite Homes of California, Inc., Granite Homes, Inc. and Granite Construction Services, LP.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, Stephen R. Thames, Brian R. Bauer, Irvine; Ruth E. Stringer, County Counsel and Mitchell L. Norton, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent County Service Area 70, Improvement Zone OS–1.
Davis & Rayburn and Thomas P. Davis, Laguna Beach, for Defendant and Respondent Brody McFarland as Successor Trustee, etc.
Plaintiff, The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. ("Habitat"), appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants City of Rancho Cucamonga and City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (sometimes "City Council" otherwise, collectively "City") on its petition for writ of mandate. By its petition Habitat sought to force City to set aside a resolution determining that Habitat is not a qualified conservation entity ("QCE") and to enter a new resolution based upon substantial evidence and in compliance with California law. Habitat argues that the petition was wrongfully denied by the trial court because it employed the wrong standard of review, because City denied Habitat due process, because City's criteria for determining what was a QCE were vague and uncertain and conflicted with federal and state law, and because City's findings in support of its resolution were not supported by the evidence before it.
In a second, related case, plaintiffs Habitat and Spirit of the Sage Council, Inc. ("Sage," collectively "Habitat/Sage"), appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendants Henderson Creek Properties, LLC ("Henderson"), SPS Development Services, Inc. ("SPS," collectively "Henderson/SPS"), Rancho 2004, LLC, Granite Homes of California, Inc., Granite Homes, Inc., Granite Construction Services, LP (collectively, "Granite") and County Service Area 70, Improvement Zone OS–1 (hereinafter sometimes, "County") after their motions for summary judgment were granted. Habitat/Sage sought damages for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and constructive trust. They claim that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because it exceeded its authority by invading the province of the trier of fact, made findings unsupported by fact or law, improperly struck most of their evidence, failed to consider reasonable inferences that supported a triable issue of material fact and failed to give effect to the contract's savings clause. Habitat/Sage also challenge the judgment insofar as it was entered against them on Henderson's cross-complaint for rescission.
In the third appeal Habitat/Sage challenge the postjudgment order awarding Henderson/SPS and Granite their attorney fees and costs. In their opening brief they expressly state that their challenge to these orders is based solely upon their claim that the underlying judgment should be reversed.
We affirm the challenged judgments and orders.
Henderson sought to develop 65.3 acres of land within the sphere of influence of City, into a residential subdivision to be annexed to the City.2 The draft environmental impact report ("EIR") proposed that Henderson convey 58 acres of off-site land to San Bernardino County Special District OS–1 ("County Special District") in order to mitigate the potential loss of habitat for sensitive plant and animal species and the loss of raptor foraging land caused by the project. Sage, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group, opposed the project on the grounds that the mitigation required in the draft EIR was inadequate to protect the environment. Sage suggested that Henderson donate mitigation lands to Habitat, a tax exempt nonprofit land trust created by Sage to own three parcels of mitigation land obtained through litigation over earlier City-approved projects. The final EIR, issued April 30, 2004, required that Henderson transfer a minimum of 54 acres of off-site mitigation land for permanent habitat conservation to "the County of San Bernardino Special District OS–1 or other qualified conservation entity approved by the City ..." along with funding to maintain the land, and responded to the other concerns in Sage's letter of objections. The staff report for the planning commission stated that the open space transfer for the project allowed the property owner to select an appropriate nonprofit entity, other than the County Special District, to receive the mitigation land, subject to City planner approval. On May 12, 2004, Sage wrote to City's planning commission that it was concerned the final EIR was not specific enough with regards to what entity would receive the mitigation lands for the Henderson project. The EIR was approved by resolution of the planning commission requiring the property owner to "transfer to the County of San Bernardino Special District OS–1 or other qualified conservation entity approved by City, in fee, a minimum of 54–acres of off-site land for permanent open space and habitat preservation; along with funding in an amount to be mutually agreed upon by the property owner and the conservation entity, to provide for long-term maintenance of said land."
Sage and Habitat appealed the resolution of the planning commission and informed the mayor and the City Council that they did not agree with the final EIR, which they found deficient in a number of respects. At its meeting on June 16, 2004, the City Council certified the final EIR, denied the appeal of the planning commission resolution, and approved other resolutions related to Henderson's project. The resolution approving the tentative tract map contained the same land transfer mitigation as required by the planning commission, as quoted above.
City and Henderson entered a development agreement dated July 7, 2004. The agreement provided that "[t]he the City shall not be prevented, in subsequent actions applicable to the Project, from applying new ordinances, rules [,] regulations and policies" so long as they do not conflict with laws existing at the time the agreement was entered. The agreement mirrored the final EIR in that it further provided, "[t]he Property Owner shall transfer to the County of San Bernardino Special District OS–1 or other qualified conservation entity approved by the City, in fee, a minimum of 54–acres of off-site land for permanent open space and habitat preservation; along with funding in an amount to be mutually agreed upon by the Property Owner and the conservation entity, to provide for long-term maintenance of said land." In addition, with respect to future entitlements (which included all of the conditions and mitigation measures stated in the resolutions of approval made by the planning commission and the City Council) City specifically retained its discretionary review authority. The agreement was specifically made enforceable by the parties. Further, it provided that "[w]here the consent or approval of any of the Parties is required in or necessary under [the development agreement], unless the context otherwise indicates, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld."
In July and August 2004, Sage filed three petitions for writ of mandate against City based upon its certification of documents required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") on three residential development projects. However, in order to prevent a CEQA challenge to the Henderson project based upon inadequate mitigation of environmental impacts, Henderson, Sage and Habitat entered into an agreement, dated July 18, 2004 ("Agreement"). Henderson agreed to convey a specified parcel of real property consisting of 86 acres to Habitat for conservation purposes, along with providing gates, fences and barriers in an amount not to exceed $15,000, plus $100,000 for administration costs, $25,000 for attorney fees and an endowment of $430,750 ($5,000 per acre for 86.15 acres). It also agreed to let Habitat onto the property to be developed to collect plant life for conservation purposes prior to grading. Habitat and Sage agreed to withdraw the objections to the Henderson project that they had lodged with the City, agreed not to challenge the EIR nor any of the required project approvals, and released Henderson and its assigns and successors from all claims arising out of or related to the Henderson project. The enumerated conditions to the close of escrow on the property to be conveyed to Habitat did not include its approval by City as a QCE. The Agreement was binding on all successors and assigns. The Agreement also stated that all...
To continue reading
Request your trial