Communities Against Blight v. City of San Jacinto
Filed 8/4/06 Communities Against Blight v. City of San Jacinto CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| COMMUNITIES AGAINST BLIGHT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN JACINTO, Defendant and Respondent; ADAMS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. | E038816 (Super.Ct.No. RIC 416034) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Gloria Trask, Judge. Affirmed.
Van Blarcom, Leibold, McClendon & Mann, John G. McClendon, Stephen M. Miles and Alisha M. Santana for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Best Best & Krieger, Michelle Ouellette, Megan K. Starr and Charity B. Schiller for Defendant and Respondent.
Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden, Theodore K. Stream and Jennifer M. Guenther for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
1. Introduction[1]
This appeal involves the construction of a Wal-Mart Supercenter, now almost completed, in San Jacinto. The planned Wal-Mart includes a major retail store, a gas station, a drive-through pharmacy, three restaurants, and other retail space.
The plaintiff, Communities Against Blight, includes as members two San Jacinto residents, Amy House and James Goosens. Plaintiff's primary objection to the underlying CEQA[2] approval was the failure of the City Council of San Jacinto to analyze and mitigate the loss of prime agricultural land and the potential blighting impacts of the project.
After reviewing the appellate briefs, we ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs on the issue of mootness for the reasons discussed in Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1202-1204. We are of the opinion that this is not a case in which plaintiff has made a strong showing that any effective relief can ultimately be granted. (Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 473, 479; Assn. for a Cleaner Environment v. Yosemite Community College Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 629, 641.) Except for plaintiff raising the questionable issue of conservation easements, there appears to be no effective feasible mitigation for the loss of agricultural land. Nor does the record show any effort by plaintiff to offer supporting evidence regarding potential urban blight or decay. Nevertheless, because we can decide the case on procedural grounds, we will not deem it entirely moot.
As framed by plaintiff in its appellant's reply brief, â€
