Case Title: In Re Environmental Plan. Com'n of Albuquerque

Citation: 531 P.2d 949, 87 N.M. 215

Docket Number: 9988

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1974-11-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
531 P.2d 949 (1974) 87 N.M. 215 In re ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING COMMISSION OF the CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE ruling on case Z-307, Coronado Shopping Center Expansion. Ann W. HYDER, Mary Alice Root and Philip D. Thacher, Appellants, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, City Commission of the City of Albuquerque, Environmental Planning Commission of the City of Albuquerque, Dale Bellamah Land Company, Inc., Bellamah Properties, Inc., Dale Bellamah Corporation, Inc. and Ernest W. Hahn, Inc., Appellees. No. 9988. Supreme Court of New Mexico. November 27, 1974. Rehearing Denied February 10, 1975. Klecan & Roach, Albuquerque, for appellants. J. Victor Pongetti, Bill Chappell, Jr., Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, John R. Cooney, James A. Thompson, Asst. City Atty., Albuquerque, Barrett, Stearns, Collins, Gleason & Kinney, Richard B. Collins, Torrance, Cal., for appellees. McMANUS, Chief Justice. The litigation now before us began as an appeal to the District Court of Bernalillo County for the purpose of reviewing a ruling of the Environmental Planning Commission for the City of Albuquerque, hereinafter referred to as EPC. The trial judge granted a motion for summary judgment against the appellants. This appeal followed. All of the problems related focus around the existing Coronado Shopping Center in northeast Albuquerque and a request by the developers for an enlargement of the center. As background, the land in question, including the expansion area, was zoned C-2 in 1956 and the zoning, then and now, permits use of the land for the purposes of a shopping center. On August 3, 1973, the developers filed a revised development plan, pursuant to an ordinance of the City of Albuquerque, for an expanded shopping center and application for approval thereof, and for the issuance of building permits. This application was filed with the *950 city planning department and circulated by it among other city departments for comments. Subsequently, the planning department made findings to the effect that the site of the expansion was zoned C-2 for a shopping center and that the proposed development would not violate adopted air quality regulations. There were additional findings concerning traffic, bus stops and on-site locations, landscaping and expansion of city utilities. The planning department recommended approval of the plan, subject to their above findings. On September 18, 1973, the EPC considered the revised development plan and after hearing testimony of various experts approved the plan subject to numerous conditions, such as bearing the cost of utility and traffic improvements and signals. Other requirements dealt with fire and water and air quality regulations, present and future. On October 3, 1973, two sets of litigants appealed to the City Commission, one group being the plaintiffs in this cause. The thrust of the appeal to the City Commission was that the EPC had not taken possible effects on air pollution into account in approving the revised development plan. Briefs were submitted and the matter was considered by the Commission who declined to hear the appeals. The plaintiffs then filed the "appeal de novo" in the district court. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment and after several hearings the trial judge caused the following to be entered: This appeal followed. All parties agree that the ordinance covering the use of the land on which the construction is to be placed is still in effect and does not prevent the construction of or addition to the existing shopping center. Appellants contend that the court erred in granting a motion for summary judgment for the reason, among others, that the court failed to recognize the powers of the EPC. At this point it might be helpful to analyze the various statutes and ordinances which govern this appeal. The Albuquerque City Commission Ordinance, No. 249-1972, which created the EPC reads as follows: A careful reading of the above quoted ordinance reveals no direct or indirect delegation of power to the EPC to make final decisions on matters such as are before this court. Neither the EPC nor any other adjunct of the City of Albuquerque may exercise zoning powers or any other power unless such powers are granted by the legislative body having authority to do so. The EPC has not been delegated the power to deny development plans or refuse to issue building permits on the basis of alleged air quality effects, inadequacy of present air quality regulations, et cetera. In fact, Ordinance 249-1972, supra, reflects that the EPC is only an advisory body of the City of Albuquerque. There are, however, other agencies authorized to promulgate air pollution regulations. One of these is the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board which was enacted pursuant to §§ 12-14-1 to 12-14-13, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp. 1973), known as the "Air Quality Control Act." Pertinent portions of the Air Quality Control Act, supra, provide for the following, as set out in State ex rel. Norvell v. Arizona Public Service Co., 85 N.M. 165, 166, 510 P.2d 98, 99 (1973): *952 The developers admitted in their oral argument that their proposed development would fall within the province and control of this act insofar as the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County are concerned. It seems clear that the above act and the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board created pursuant to it, and not the EPC, are vested with the powers, duties and responsibilities of maintaining adequate environmental safeguards in the City of Albuquerque. In fact, counsel for the developers stated during oral arguments: Appellants rely heavily on an argument that they should have been granted standing, and that the lower court's failure to do so constitutes reversible error. In Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co. v. Driver, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 31, 433 F.2d 1137 at page 1141 (1970), the court addresses itself quite concisely to this very point, stating: See also, Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Shaffer, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 424 F.2d 859 (1970), and Ballerina Pen Co. v. Kunzig, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 98, 433 F.2d 1204 (1970). Blackhawk, supra, cites the case of Richard v. Credit Suisse, 242 N.Y. 346, 350, 152 N.E. 110, 111 (1926), in which Judge Cardozo quite properly points out the purpose of the motion for summary judgment, at page 1141 of 433 F.2d: In the case before us, we are confronted with a formal issue of whether or not the plaintiffs should have been granted standing below, and general allegations of lack of notice of the EPC hearing and denial of plaintiffs' rights to prevent threatened air pollution, among others. The fact remains, however, that the EPC has no power to do any of the things that the plaintiffs desire, *953 and the Air Quality Control Act, supra, sets out the powers and procedures governing the issues in this case. The developers have complied with all of the zoning ordinances and statutory requirements to-date and, as they admit, they must continue to do so. We can find no genuine issue of law or fact involved in this case and hold that the developers were entitled to and correctly granted a summary judgment. See Goodman v. Brock, 83 N.M. 789, 498 P.2d 676 (1972). The case of Dewey v. Clark, 88 U.S. App.D.C. 137, 180 F.2d 766 (1950), addresses itself to the type of issues involved here, and provides us with meaningful guidelines as set out at page 772: Since the issues before us now were the same as those presented to the trial judge below and subjected to his careful scrutiny, we need not analyze them again in the abstract. The content of this opinion reflects the decision of the court below that the power of the EPC simply was not available to sustain the plaintiffs' position. Consequently, other points raised on appeal need no further discussion. The order of the dismissal entered by the trial court is affirmed. It is so ordered. STEPHENSON and MARTINEZ, JJ., concur.