Date: 07-06-2015

Case Style: COALITION FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE IN YUCAIPA v. CITY OF YUCAIPA et al., TARGET STORES, INC.,

Case Number: E057589

Judge: Donald R. Alvarez

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Plaintiff's Attorney: Leibold McClendon & Mann, John G. McClendon for Plaintiff and Appellant.
ichards, Watson & Gershon, David M. Snow and Ginetta L. Giovinco

Defendant's Attorney: Holland & Knight, Amanda J. Monchamp and Melaine Sengupta for Real Party in
Interest

Description: In May 2005, Target Corporation entered into a contract with Palmer General
Corporation, the owner of land in the City of Yucaipa to develop a shopping center.
Under the agreement, Target agreed to purchase approximately 60 acres of the land
owned by Palmer, for the development (Project).
Target applied for a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) and a General Plan
Amendment for a regional shopping center totaling approximately 613,000 square feet of building space on the acreage. On October 8, 2007, at a meeting of the City Council of
the City of Yucaipa, the Council conditionally approved the PDP and General Plan
Amendment to adopt the land use plan for the planned development district, following an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The council’s action required that the PDP
incorporate certain signage standards and other conditions, and accepted the Mitigation
Measures identified in the Final EIR, as well as adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations.

Target was unable to complete the purchase of the land because Palmer missed
deadlines and failed to complete specified off-site improvements required for the
processing of off-site improvement approvals. On October 29, 2007, Target sued Palmer
for Specific Performance, Breach of Contract, and Breach of Implied Covenant of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing (Contract Action).

On November 8, 2007, Coalition filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging
Yucaipa’s approval of entitlements, asserting they violated CEQA. Target funded and
defended this CEQA action on behalf of Yucaipa, pursuant to a condition that it
indemnify Yucaipa found in Section 81.0150 of the City of Yucaipa’s Development
Code, which was included in the conditional approval of the Project.

On October 30, 2008, the trial court issued its ruling on the Petition for Writ of
Mandate. The trial court granted both sides’ requests for judicial notice. This included
the City Council Minutes for Regular Meeting of October 8, 2007, Yucaipa Official Land
Use Districts Map, dated April 24, 2008, General Land Use Element, dated July 2004; City of Yucaipa General Plan, Housing Element, City of Yucaipa General Plan, City of
Yucaipa General Plan Table, II-2, Official Land Use Districts Statistical Chart, dated
September 28, 1992, Yucaipa City Development Code Article 2, Planned Development
Review, Sections 83.030205-83.030230, and the City Development Code Chapter 11,
Regulation of Hillside and/or Ridgeline Developments, Sections 87.1105-87.1180.
Additionally, the court considered several documents found in the Administrative
Record, which are not part of the present record on appeal.

The court found the Project was consistent with the Housing Element, and
Yucaipa did not abuse its discretion in approving the EIR. The court denied the Petition
for Writ of Mandate. Judgment was entered accordingly, and Coalition appealed, in Case
No. E047624.

Prior to the filing of the respondent’s brief in that appeal, Yucaipa and Target
moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground of mootness. (Coalition for a Sustainable
Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa, et al. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 939, 941.) Mootness
was based on the fact that Target and Palmer had abandoned the Project due to the
litigation in the contract action. (Ibid.) Target had dismissed the Specific Performance
cause of action of the Contract action, but continued with the claims for damages against
Palmer. It also informed Yucaipa that it no longer had any equitable or legal interest in
the property for which the land use entitlements were approved, or in the entitlements
themselves. Target then filed the motion to dismiss itself from the CEQA litigation in
the Court of Appeal.

As a consequence, at a regular city council meeting, Yucaipa revoked the land use
entitlements for the Oak Hills Marketplace project. The Yucaipa Agenda Report explains
that when Target abandoned the Project, the city attorney sought to determine if Palmer
would assume the lead in defending the appeal, but Palmer refused. Because both Target
and Palmer had refused to comply with the conditions of approval, staff had prepared the
necessary ordinance and resolution to repeal the General Plan Land Use District Change,
the PDP, and the certification of the EIR.
This Court requested supplemental briefing and issued a published decision in
case No. E047624, in which the judgment was reversed as moot, and the trial court was
directed to dismiss the underlying action with prejudice. (Coalition for a Sustainable
Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 947.) On December 6,
2011, on remand, the trial court did as directed, ordering the petition for writ of mandate
dismissed with prejudice as to the entire action. On March 12, 2012, Coalition filed a motion for an award of attorney’s fees

pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1021.5. Coalition argued that the
mandamus proceeding was the catalyst for Yucaipa’s action of revoking the land use
entitlements, entitling it to attorneys’ fees. On June 4, 2012, the trial court denied the
motion for attorneys’ fees after finding that the litigation was not the catalyst for the
abandonment of the project. Instead, the court determined that the evidence showed that
the Palmer litigation and the failure to secure the real property on which the Project was
to be located were the reasons the developer and Yucaipa elected not to proceed. The
order was filed on August 30, 2012.

Coalition has now appealed that order.

On appeal, Coalition argues that the court erred in denying its motion for
attorneys’ fees because there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding
that the mandamus action was not a catalyst for Yucaipa’s rescission of its approval for
the Project. It urges us to find that substantial evidence shows the mandamus proceeding
was the catalyst for Yucaipa’s action. We disagree.

Outcome: The judgment is affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: