Friends of Santa Clara River v. Cnty. of L.A.

• Decision Date: 03 April 2020
• Docket Number: B296547
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: FRIENDS OF THE SANTA CLARA RIVER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents; THE NEWHALL LAND AND FARMING COMPANY, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

FRIENDS OF THE SANTA CLARA RIVER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents;

THE NEWHALL LAND AND

FARMING COMPANY, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

B296547

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

April 3, 2020

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS170568)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard L. Fruin, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

Advocates for the Environment, Dean Wallraff and Kathleen R. Unger, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Office of the County Counsel, Mary C. Wickham, County

Counsel, Elaine M. Lemke, Assistant County Counsel, and Keever Rhodes Muir, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents.

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance, Mark J. Dillon and David P. Hubbard; Neilsen Merksamer Parinello Gross & Leoni, Arthur G. Scotland; Latham & Watkins, James L. Arnone and Benjamin Hanelin, for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

In 2011, the County of Los Angeles (County) certified environmental impact reports (EIRs) for the first two phases of the Newhall Ranch development in the northwestern part of the County. The EIRs considered, among other things, whether the projects would significantly impact the region's water supply under various climate scenarios. Several years later, following litigation that resulted in a writ directing the County to decertify the EIRs' analyses of greenhouse gas emissions, the County issued recirculated analyses of greenhouse gas emissions, certified these in combination with the 2011 EIRs, and reapproved project permits. Petitioners in this case, Friends of the Santa Clara River (FSCR) and Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment (SCOPE), contend post-2011 reports and data concerning climate change warranted supplemental review of water supply impacts as well. We consider whether substantial evidence supports the County's determination that no new information or changed circumstances warranted supplemental environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

I. BACKGROUND

This case concerns the County's environmental review of the first two phases of the Newhall Ranch development, Landmark Village and Mission Village. To provide context for this dispute, we briefly discuss the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan and litigation concerning the Department of Fish and Wildlife's (Fish and Wildlife) analysis of this project's greenhouse gas emissions. As we shall explain, this litigation had consequences for challenges to the County's certification of EIRs for Landmark Village and Mission Village in 2011, which prompted the County to revise its analyses of greenhouse gas emissions for these projects in 2017.

A. The Newhall Ranch Specific Plan

Newhall Ranch, located in an unincorporated area of the Santa Clarita Valley in northwestern Los Angeles County, is owned by real party in interest the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). Its nearly 12,000 acres have historically been used for oil and natural gas production, cattle grazing, and agricultural activities. The Santa Clara River, which runs approximately 100 miles from the San Gabriel mountains to the Pacific Ocean between Oxnard and Ventura, crosses the site.

The County's Newhall Ranch Specific Plan contemplates more than 20,000 dwelling units, commercial and business space, several schools, a library, a golf course, a lake, parks, and other infrastructure and amenities. Landmark Village and Mission Village are two of the five villages that will compose the Newhall Ranch community. Plans for Landmark Village include, among other things, more than 1,400 dwelling units and approximately one million square feet of commercial uses. Plans for Mission Village include, among other things, more than 4,000 dwelling units and approximately 1.5 million square feet of commercial uses.

The Newhall Ranch Specific Plan includes several mitigation measures related to water resources. Most pertinent to this case is mitigation measure 4.11-15, which provides that "[g]roundwater historically and presently used for crop irrigation on the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site and elsewhere in Los Angeles County shall be made available by [Newhall], or its assignee, to partially meet the potable water demands of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. The amount of groundwater pumped for this purpose shall not exceed 7,038 [acre-feet per year¹]. This is the amount of groundwater pumped historically and presently by [Newhall] to support its agricultural operations. Pumping this amount will not result in a net increase in groundwater use in the Santa Clarita Valley. . . ."

B. The EIRs Approved in 2010-2011

1. Landmark Village and Mission Village project EIRs

After the County approved the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan and certified a program EIR in 2003, Newhall prepared project EIRs for Landmark Village and Mission Village.² The County certified the project EIRs in late 2011. Two of the potential environmental impacts analyzed in these EIRs are relevant to this case: water service, and to a lesser degree, greenhouse gas emissions.

The County's analysis of greenhouse gas emissions is relevant for present purposes only as background for litigation driving subsequent action by the County. Both EIRs concluded the projects would not impede compliance with state emissions reduction goals. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the projects would therefore not be "'cumulatively considerable'" under CEQA.

With respect to water service, the EIRs explained Landmark Village and Mission Village's water needs will be satisfied by local groundwater and recycled water without any significant impact on Santa Clarita Valley water resources. More specifically, groundwater pumped from the Alluvial aquifer by Valencia Water Company will be the sole source of potable water for the projects, while recycled water will satisfy non-potable water demand.³ Potable water demand is projected to exceed non-potable water demand in both projects: Landmark Village will require 608 acre-feet per year of potable water and 364 acre-feet per year of non-potable water; Mission Village will require 1,676 acre-feet per year of potable water and 1,243 acre-feet per year of non-potable water. According to the EIRs, Newhall has rights to 7,038 acre-feet per year of groundwater from the Alluvial aquifer, which is "already used to support [Newhall's] existing agricultural uses, [so] there is not expected to be any significant environmental effects resulting from the use of such water to meet the potable demands of [Landmark Village and Mission Village] . . . ."

The EIRs also addressed whether the Alluvial aquifer can satisfy the potable water needs of Landmark Village and Mission Village without any significant impact on other existing and planned water users in the Santa Clarita Valley.⁴ The reports concluded the aquifer was sufficient, based in part on the groundwater operating plan developed by the Castaic Lake Water Agency (the Water Agency) and retail water purveyors. Under the groundwater operating plan, water users in the Santa Clarita Valley can sustainably pump between 30,000 and 40,000 acre-feet of water from the Alluvial aquifer in normal/wet years and between 30,000 and 35,000 acre-feet of water in each of three succeeding dry years.⁵

The EIRs explain that reduced production during dry years "is a result of practical constraints in the eastern part of the Basin, where lowered groundwater levels in dry periods have the effect of reducing pumping capacities in that shallower portion of the aquifer."⁶ The Mission Village EIR further explains that "although the Alluvial aquifer can experience periods of declining groundwater levels during the relatively dry periods that occur between large-scale rainfall events, (1) the dry-year conditions are not permanent, because wet-year rainfall and runoff rapidly recharge the Alluvial aquifer to an extent that groundwater levels return to their historical high levels; and (2) because these periodic large-scale recharge events naturally refill the aquifer to a 'full' condition . . . , there is no long-term overdraft of the Alluvial aquifer, even along the upper reaches of the [Santa Clara] river."

Both the EIRs and the Water Agency documents on which they rely account for periods of drought and include caveats concerning the potential impact of climate change. For example, the EIRs observe that the Santa Clarita Valley saw extended dry periods from 1971 to 1976, 1984 to 1991, and 1999 to 2003. The EIRs caution that "future conditions cannot be projected with any degree of certainty," and although the groundwater operating plan appears to be sustainable "under a range of potential climate change trends," climate change may render it unsustainable: "The range of potential climate change impacts extends from a possible wet trend to a possible dry trend over the long term. The trends that range from an approximate continuation of historical average precipitation, to something wetter than that, would appear to result in continued sustainability of the 2008 Operating Plan, again with intermittent constraints on full pumping in the eastern part of the basin. The potential long-term dry trend arising out of climate change would be expected to decrease local recharge to the point that lower and declining groundwater levels would render the 2008 Operating Plan unsustainable."

According to the Water Agency's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan,⁷ the groundwater operating plan is sustainable based on an 86-year historical analysis. The 2010 Urban Water Management Plan...