ELR Citation: ELR 20159
No(s). s. E042229 et al (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Jul 21, 2009)

A California appellate court upheld a lower court decision denying an environmental group's petition seeking to force a city to set aside a resolution determining that the group is not a qualified conservation entity, thereby preventing the group from receiving mitigation lands under the California Environmental Quality Act in conjunction with a residential development project. The group argued that the city denied the group due process by engaging in backroom dealing to establish criteria that would exclude the group as a qualified conservation entity, adopting those criteria, and then finding the group did not meet them without providing meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard. But the group failed to show how the city's action deprives it of a liberty or property interest for which due process attaches. Even if the group had demonstrated its right to due process, the record demonstrates that it was aware of the conditions under consideration by the city and was in fact heard prior to the city's vote on the resolution. Similarly, the group failed to support its argument that the city' criteria for determining what was a qualified conservation entity were vague and uncertain and conflicted with federal and state law. And the city's findings in support of its resolution are supported by substantial evidence. The lower court, therefore, properly refused to grant the group's petition. In addition, the lower court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the developer on the group's claims that the developer breached a contract when, based on the city's resolution, it did not grant mitigation land to the group. The group's qualification to receive and hold the mitigation land was an implied condition to the formation of the agreement. Since the group did not meet that condition, there was no contract to breach.