Appeals Court Airs Cypress Carpet Warehouse Dispute

SANTA ANA — Like a ghost from the past, a warehouse development that triggered a legal battle and an unsuccessful recall election in Cypress in 1995 was once again before a court on Wednesday.

Justices on the 4th District Court of Appeal listened to arguments about whether a proper environmental impact report had been prepared before a 439,650-square-foot carpet-distribution warehouse was built at Valley View Street and Orangewood Avenue in Cypress.

The justices’ ruling may not be announced for several weeks or even months.

The warehouse is now in operation. Daniel Wildish, the lawyer for opponents of the building, said outside of court he does not think the justices would order the warehouse to be torn down. But he said a favorable ruling could give residents more control over warehouse operations and future construction in that area.

In 1994 and 1995, Cypress residents in the Valley View area tried to prevent construction of the warehouse. They contended its 24-hour operation would bring noise and pollution. But the residents lost a lower-court battle, even though Superior Court Judge Francisco F. Firmat agreed May 17, 1995, that Cypress had failed to conduct a proper environmental impact report.

But Firmat said he could not halt construction and order a new EIR because of a technicality. He said no protesting resident had specifically mentioned the words “environmental impact report” when the warehouse issue was first before the Cypress City Council on Sept. 26, 1994. Firmat said he therefore had no jurisdiction.

*

It was that narrow issue of jurisdiction that was before the Court of Appeal on Wednesday. Wildish told the justices that Cypress residents had certainly made clear their environmental concerns, even if no one mentioned “EIR.” Wildish also noted that the lower court judge had said residents should not need to have a lawyer with them to oppose matters at a City Council meeting.

But Justice Thomas F. Crosby Jr. interjected, “It’s sure a good idea.”

Robert W. Loewen, attorney for Warland Industries, the developer, told the justices that the warehouse foes had failed to exhaust their remedies at the city level before going to court.

Thomas Nixon, a lawyer representing the city of Cypress, told the court that the warehouse project had “undergone thorough environmental review.” Wildish strenuously disagreed.

After the hearing, Wildish said that if the Court of Appeal returns the case to Firmat, as the warehouse opponents are asking, Firmat probably will order a new EIR. That, in turn, could bring more controls on the warehouse and restrictions on future construction, Wildish said.