City of Santa Clarita v. Las Lomas Land Company, LLC, B192984 (Cal. App. 5/20/2008)

• Decision Date: 20 May 2008
• Docket Number: B192986,B192984
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, Defendant and Appellant, v. LAS LOMAS LAND COMPANY, LLC, Petitioner and Respondent. CAROLE and FREDERICK BERGIN, et al., Real Parties in Interest.

Page 1

CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, Defendant and Appellant, v. LAS LOMAS LAND COMPANY, LLC, Petitioner and Respondent CAROLE and FREDERICK BERGIN, et al., Real Parties in Interest.

B192984

B192986

Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven

May 20, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Nos. BS082219 and BS097982. James C. Chalfant, Judge. Affirmed.

Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Carl K. Newton, Geralyn L. Skapik and Timothy H. Irons for Defendant and Appellant.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Carlyle W. Hall Jr., Joyce Wong Kup and Andrew Oelz for Petitioner and Respondent.

WOODS, J.

SUMMARY

These two consolidated appeals arise from the trial court's rulings granting a motion to enforce a prior writ of mandate and a subsequent petition for writ of mandate pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SYNOPSIS

Las Lomas Land Company, LLC, proposed the development of 555 acres of land to which it held title or purchase options in unincorporated Los Angeles County (the County), immediately adjacent to the City of Los Angeles (Los Angeles) on the south and the City of Santa Clarita (the City) on the north. In mid-2002, in order to commence the CEQA environmental review process, Las Lomas submitted an environmental assessment to Los Angeles, and Los Angeles published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Las Lomas Project—a proposed mixed-use development of up to 5,800 dwelling units; 2.3 million square feet of office and research and development space; a 300-room hotel; 225,000 square feet of retail space; 250,000 square feet of community facilities; and 285 acres of open space.

The NOP stated that Las Lomas requested a series of discretionary actions, including: (1) approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and Los Angeles of a sphere of influence (SOI) amendment encompassing the 555-acre Las Lomas site; (2) approval by LAFCO and Los Angeles of the annexation of the proposed development site to Los Angeles; and (3) approvals by Los Angeles of an appropriate general plan designation along with a zone change and specific plan approval.

In August, Santa Clarita submitted written comments to Los Angeles as to the scope of the proposed EIR, emphasizing the importance of the site's environmental resources and their environmental sensitivity. Santa Clarita wanted the Los Angeles EIR to provide a detailed evaluation of the potentially significant impacts the development might have on the site's specified significant environmental area, wildlife corridor, cultural resources and wetlands and hazards potentially posed by the site's steep slopes, wildlife hazards and nearby earthquake faults as well as the evaluation of numerous alternatives, including development at much lower densities under Santa Clarita's own plans and policies. Las Lomas and its consultants worked with Los Angeles to prepare the Las Lomas EIR.

Then, in December, the Santa Clarita City Council adopted Resolution No. 02-175, declaring "any development in the Las Lomas project area will have a significant environmental impact upon the Santa Clarita Valley." It also approved Resolution No. 02-176, initiating annexation proceedings for Santa Clarita to assume jurisdiction and control over an 825-acre area encompassing the Las Lomas site and, because this annexation was "inconsistent with . . . Santa Clarita's Sphere of Influence as designated by [LAFCO]," indicating it would also concurrently request that LAFCO amend and expand Santa Clarita's sphere of influence plan. Santa Clarita's application to LAFCO sought approval of two "Related Jurisdictional Changes"—"Annexation to . . . Santa Clarita and Sphere of Influence Amendment." LAFCO rejected Santa Clarita's initial application, noting its failure to pre-zone the area and to provide CEQA documentation.

Two months later (in February 2003), Santa Clarita further considered efforts to acquire jurisdiction over the Las Lomas site by way of the proposed SOI amendment, annexation and an ordinance to pre-zone 811 acres of the annexation area to residential estate and 14 acres to residential moderate. An initial study prepared in support of its Negative Declaration (ND) indicated that Santa Clarita's general plan designations and zoning would allow construction of up to 560 residential units on the Las Lomas site. In concluding it was not required to prepare a full EIR, Santa Clarita stated its proposed actions were "not linked to" and "not associated with" any particular development proposal then pending before Santa Clarita, it did "not appear reasonably foreseeable" that Las Lomas would consider developing at the lower densities contemplated by Santa Clarita's general plan and zoning, no development within the Las Lomas site was "reasonably foreseeable" as a result and, consequently, no level of development had to be considered. Further, Santa Clarita determined, the environmental impacts of any site development would be addressed later in a full EIR upon the formal presentation of a development proposal so no EIR was then necessary to evaluate the potential impact of its proposed SOI amendment, annexation, and pre-zoning.

During Santa Clarita's administrative proceedings, Las Lomas objected that CEQA required a lead agency to consider not only proposed actions immediately before it but all direct and indirect "reasonably foreseeable" future actions and consequences that might later flow from the immediately proposed action, stated it planned to "promptly and diligently develop the Las Lomas site regardless of what jurisdiction may govern the site" and the densities ultimately approved and maintained that development was "not only [reasonably] foreseeable" but "imminent." As a result, Las Lomas contended, a full EIR was necessary to evaluate the numerous significant environmental impacts Santa Clarita had already recognized for "any development" of the Las Lomas site.

Based on its Negative Declaration (determining no EIR was required), Santa Clarita approved its proposed SOI amendment, annexation and pre-zoning actions and then filed Notice of Determination of its approval of these actions and certification of its Negative Declaration that same month.

In April, Las Lomas filed its first petition for writ of mandate (Las Lomas I) challenging Santa Clarita's proposed SOI amendment, annexation and pre-zoning as violative of CEQA absent an EIR. Las Lomas sought orders setting aside these actions and providing Santa Clarita could not proceed further without a full EIR.

After hearing on the matter, the trial court (Hon. Dzintra Janavs) found "[t]he record contains substantial evidence to support a fair argument that [Santa Clarita's] actions may have significant environmental impacts." As such, Santa Clarita had violated CEQA by preparing only an ND; CEQA required the preparation of a full EIR. In May 2004, Judge Janavs issued a Final Judgment and Peremptory Writ of Mandate ordering Santa Clarita (1) to set aside its defective actions and (2) in "any subsequent processing" of the defective actions, prepare an EIR in full compliance with CEQA and the court's statement of decision while (3) retaining jurisdiction until Santa Clarita fully complied with the writ.

Santa Clarita did not appeal. The Santa Clarita City Council rescinded its prior approval of the ND (in June) and rescinded its prezoning ordinance (in July). In August, Santa Clarita filed its return to the writ, asserting it had complied with the first part by setting aside its defective actions in violation of CEQA.

Meanwhile, Santa Clarita adopted its Community Strategic Plan, describing its community priorities and proposed strategies for achieving them. Under this plan, Santa Clarita's "action plan for growth" would focus on completing a "Project[ ] Already In Process"—"[b]ring[ing] the South Santa Clarita annexation strategy to conclusion" during the next three years.

In December, Santa Clarita's City Manager submitted to the City Council his annual report on the progress in meeting the past year's goals, stating Santa Clarita and Los Angeles had been discussing a new strategy for controlling development of the Las Lomas site such that the cities would "divid[e] the property at the watershed line, for Santa Clarita to annex the property on the north side, and the City of Los Angeles to extend its sphere of influence on the south side." In addition, "[e]nvironmental documents will be initiated for annexation of the property into Santa Clarita with the intent to complete in 2005."

The next day, a Daily News front-page article reported that Santa Clarita and Los Angeles representatives had "quietly cut a deal" to split jurisdiction of the Las Lomas development site: Santa Clarita would "annex about 75 percent of the [Las Lomas] property north of the Santa Susana Mountains," while Los Angeles would bring the remaining 25 percent into its SOI boundaries.

In the meantime, LAFCO had undertaken a municipal service review (MSR) to update its SOI plan for Santa Clarita and assess whether Santa Clarita's municipal boundaries should be expanded anywhere. (See Gov. Code, §§ 56424, 56430 [requiring LAFCO to review each city's public service capabilities in order to update the city's SOI boundaries at least once every five years].) Notwithstanding Santa Clarita's request for reconsideration, LAFCO found several important deficiencies in Santa Clarita's ability to provide public services and infrastructure for future growth and development. Santa Clarita could adequately serve its current population within its current boundaries but, according to the January 2005 MSR, "[a]nticipated growth in the area could create a significant impact on service demands and response times in the region." "[A]s further development occurs in...