Pac. Shores Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Fed. Aviation Admin., C 13-2827 PJH
| Decision Date | 07 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. C 13-2827 PJH,C 13-2827 PJH |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | PACIFIC SHORES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, et al., Respondents. |
The motions of respondents/defendants to dismiss the petition and for judgment on the pleadings came on for hearing before this court on February 19, 2014. Petitioners/plaintiffs appeared by their counsel Kelly Smith; respondent/defendant Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") appeared by its counsel Michael Pyle; respondent/defendant Border Coast Regional Airport Authority ("Authority") appeared by its counsel Autumn Luna; and the defendant-intervenors appeared by their counsel Jacqueline Iwata and Deborah Sivas. Having read the parties' papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, the court hereby GRANTS the motions as follows.
Petitioners/plaintiffs Pacific Shores Property Owners Association and William A. Ritter (collectively, "PSPOA") filed the present action on June 16, 2013 as a petition for writ of mandate, and also seeking injunctive relief and damages. The Authority answered the petition, and the FAA moved to dismiss the sole cause of action asserted against it. Thecourt granted the motion, with leave to amend. The court also granted the motion of Northcoast Environmental Center, Smith River Alliance, and five individual landowners for leave to intervene as defendants. PSPOA filed a first amended petition and complaint ("FAC") on December 17, 2013.
The Pacific Shores Property Owners Association is an association of private owners of parcels in the Pacific Shores Subdivision ("the Subdivision"), which is located in Del Norte County, California, and was approved and recorded in 1963 with 1,535 lots on 1,486 acres. PSPOA alleges that in preparation for future development, a 26-mile road system, and drainage and flood control improvements were constructed within the Subdivision, and electrical lines were brought to the main road.
According to respondents/defendants, however, the area consists of low-lying coastal dunes that are essentially undevelopable. Moreover, no infrastructure has been developed in 50 years, there is no sewer system or water delivery system serving the lots, septic tanks are not permitted because the soil is sand and the groundwater is close to the surface, and the few structures that are located there are trailers with no apparent sanitation systems.
PSPOA asserts that beginning in the mid-1980s, agencies of the State of Califonria and the County of Del Norte began "manipulating the surface elevation" of Lake Earl, the lagoon adjacent to the Subdivision. By allowing the surface of the lake to rise, and preventing efforts to divert the water, they allegedly caused episodic flooding of the Subdivision. In 2006, certain Subdivision property owners filed an inverse condemnation suit, Smith v. Department of Fish & Game, Case No. 07AS01516 (Superior Court, County of Sacramento). The trial court ruled in favor of those plaintiffs for damages from the physical flooding of the Subdivision. Both sides appealed.1
According to its website, the Authority is a Joint Powers Authority with a Board ofDirectors comprised of representatives from Del Norte County, the City of Crescent City, the Elk Valley Rancheria, Smith River Rancheria, the City of Brookings, Oregon and Curry County, Oregon. It operates the Del Norte County Regional Airport ("the Airport"), also known as Jack McNamara Field.
In June 2000, the FAA completed an evaluation of the Airport's existing runway safety areas, and concluded that they did not meet applicable FAA design standards. As part of the 2005 appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation, Congress required all commercial airports to come into compliance with FAA design standards for runway safety areas by the end of 2015, and allocated federal funding to assist local airports with the needed improvements. Consequently, approximately five years ago, the the Authority initiated the Runway Safety Area Improvement Project.
In July 2009, the Authority filed a Notice of Preparation with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, formally initiating the review mandated under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). In 2010, consistent with the Notice of Preparation, the Authority drafted a plan that discussed the possibility of purchasing lots from Pacific Shores Subdivision landowners to use as mitigation for the wetlands that would be lost because of the Runway project.
The Authority submitted the Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR (Environmental Impact Report) to the State on February 25, 2011, listing the Subdivision as a potential wetland mitigation site. In March 2011, the Authority held a public meeting to discuss the Draft EIR. In December 2011, the Authority's Board of Commissioners approved the Runway Safety Project, and filed a Notice of Determination with the State (the final decision document under CEQA).
PSPOA claims that the expansion plans and supporting EIR did not specifically describe how the environmental impacts of the runway and terminal project would be mitigated, as required under CEQA. PSPOA alleges that prior to the time that the airport runway and terminal project EIR was certified, the Subdivision property-owners had received no notice that their properties, some distance away, were being evaluated as amitigation alternative for the airport expansion impacts. PSPOA asserts that it was only after they "inadvertently" discovered in December 2012 that the County Board of Supervisors was taking steps to use Subdivision roads as mitigation that any owners of the affected lots had any idea that subdivision roads were being considered for "removal."
PSPOA contends that the Authority then scheduled a meeting to disclose the Pacific Shores Subdivision "road removal plan" to the property owners. The meeting was held on February 13, 2013. PSPOA claims that at the meeting, the land owners were told that an environmental analysis of the "Pacific Shores mitigation" would be conducted, that the roads considered for "removal" would be disclosed, and that the analysis would be completed before the alternative was adopted.
PSPOA asserts, however, that the Authority later considered in closed session an appraiser's estimate of the values of the lots. This appraiser had allegedly previously conducted similar appraisals for the state agencies that had sought to acquire the Subdivision lots to create a state park, and had worked with local environmental groups. PSPOA contends that the appraisals failed to include proper comparable valuations, and instead used one valuation for all the lots without consideration of individual values.
PSPOA also alleges that notwithstanding the promise by the Authority to conduct an environmental review of the proposed road closures and property purchases, no such review has ever been conducted; and that the Authority has indicated on the one hand that other alternatives to the mitigation would be pursued, while at the same time has proceeded with the "road closure" and "lot acquisition."
PSPOA asserts that it was not until September of 2013 that the Authority formally and officially approved a mitigation project necessary to comply with the Coastal Commission coastal development permit which had been conditionally approved only the month before that. However, PSPOA alleges, it did so without adoption of the "EIR addendum" promised earlier.
In the FAC, PSPOA asserts five causes of action - (1) a claim of violation of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies for Federal andFederally Assisted Programs ("Uniform Relocation Assistance Act" or "URA"), 42 U.S.C. § 4601, et seq., against the FAA and the Authority; (2) a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, against the Authority; (3) a claim for inverse condemnation damages, against the Authority; (4) a claim of violation of CEQA, Cal. Govt. Code § 21000, et seq., against the Authority; and (5) a claim of violation of the Constitutional prohibition against private gifts of public money, Cal. Const. Art. XVI, § 6, against the Authority.
The FAA now seeks an order dismissing the one claim asserted against it, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Authority and the defendant-intervenors seek judgment on the pleadings as to all causes of action alleged in the FAC.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by Article III of the United States Constitution and statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986); see also Chen-Cheng Wang ex rel. United States v. FMC Corp., 975 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1992). The court is under a continuing duty to dismiss an action whenever it appears that the court lacks jurisdiction. Spencer Enters., Inc. v. United States, 345 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2003); Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computers Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). The burden of establishing that a cause lies within this limited jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env't, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001).
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests for the legal sufficiency of the claims alleged in the complaint. Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2003). Review is limited to the contents of the complaint. All...
To continue reading
Request your trial