Friends River v. Cnty. of L. A.

• Decision Date: 11 May 2018
• Docket Number: B282421,B282427
• 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. CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY 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.

CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY 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.

B282421

B282427

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

May 11, 2018

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. BS136549)

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS138001)

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 County Counsel, Mary C. Wickham and Elaine M. Lemke, for Defendant and Respondent.

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance, Mark J. Dillon and David P. Hubbard; Nielsen Merksamer Parinello Gross & Leoni, Arthur G. Scotland; Morrison & Foerster, Miriam A. Vogel, for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

____________________

INTRODUCTION

We are combining for decision two appeals pending before this court. In Friends of the Santa Clara River v. County of Los Angeles, case number B282421 (Friends), plaintiffs and appellants¹ Friends of the Santa Clara River and Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment appeal a judgment and writ of mandate decertifying portions of a final environmental impact report (EIR) prepared and certified by defendants and respondents County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (collectively, the County), and directing the County to bring those portions into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)² In California Native Plant Society v. County of Los Angeles, case No. B282427 (Native Plant), the same plaintiffs and appellants³ appeal a nearlyidentical judgment and writ of mandate in a separate but related case after the same judge conducted a joint hearing for the two cases.

In both cases plaintiffs contend the court erred by partially decertifying the final EIR while leaving project approvals in place. We hold that the limited writ was a valid exercise of the trial court's equitable powers under section 21168.9. We affirm the judgment and the writ of mandate.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Procedural overview

We start with a brief overview of three related cases arising from the proposed Newhall Ranch development in northwest Los Angeles County. The first case, Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife, is not part of the current appeal, but was the subject of a 2015 opinion by the California Supreme Court (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204 (Center for Biological Diversity), as well as three separate opinions by this court.

The two cases currently on appeal are Friends and Native Plant. The Friends litigation concerns Landmark Village, "one of the five villages where residential andcommercial development are to occur as part of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan." The Native Plant litigation concerns Mission Village, a separate project within Newhall Ranch.

Center for Biological Diversity Litigation

In 2012, the trial court in the Center for Biological Diversity litigation issued a writ of mandate requiring decertification of the EIR prepared by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (the Department), voiding all project approvals, and enjoining any project activity by the Department or the developer.⁴ This court reversed in 2014. The California Supreme Court granted a petition for review. (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (Mar. 20, 2014, B245131) [nonpub. opn.] (Center for Biological Diversity I), review granted July 9, 2014, No. S217763.) In 2015, the California Supreme Court held⁵ that the final EIR violated CEQA because thegreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions insignificance finding was "not supported by a reasoned explanation based on substantial evidence." (Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 213.)

The Supreme Court remanded the matter to this court. We issued an opinion directing the trial court "to enter a finding that there is no substantial evidence the project's [GHG] emissions will not result in a cumulatively significant environmental impact." (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 452, 469 (Center for Biological Diversity II).) We directed the trial court to proceed under section 21168.9 and at a minimum set aside the certification of the EIR on the GHG emission issue and two other issues. (Ibid.)

The trial court entered judgment and issued a writ of mandate on December 19, 2016, directing the Department to void certification of portions of the EIR addressing the significance of the project's GHG emissions and the measures to protect a fish species, suspending the CEQA findings and statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan until they were updated, and enjoining all project activity includingconstruction until the EIR was compliant with CEQA. The court's order expressly stated that all other project approvals would remain in place because no action was needed as to them "unless compliance with the Writ changes or affects" them. Plaintiffs appealed the judgment and writ. We affirmed in a published opinion. (Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish & Wildlife (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1245, 1256 (Center for Biological Diversity III).)

Friends Litigation

Plaintiffs filed a petition for relief in the Friends litigation in 2012; the trial court denied the petition in 2014, and this court affirmed in 2015. (Friends of the Santa Clara River v. County of Los Angeles (Apr. 21, 2015, B256125) [nonpub. opn.] (Friends I).) The Supreme Court later transferred the matter back to this court with directions to vacate our earlier decision (Friends I) and reconsider in light of Center for Biological Diversity. Following the Supreme Court's instructions, we vacated Friends I, and in Friends of the Santa Clara River v. County of Los Angeles (Nov. 3, 2016, B256125) [nonpub. opn.]) (Friends II), we reversed the trial court's judgment on the GHG issue only, affirming the rest of the judgment.Native Plant litigation

Plaintiffs filed a petition for relief in the Native Plant litigation in 2013; the trial court denied the petition in 2014, and this court affirmed in 2015. (California Native Plant Society v. County of Los Angeles (Sept. 29, 2015, B258090) [nonpub. opn.] (Native Plant I).) The Supreme Court later transferred the matter back to this court with directions to vacate our earlier decision (Native Plant I) and reconsider in light of Center for Biological Diversity. Following the Supreme Court's instructions, we vacated Native Plant I, and in California Native Plant Society v. County of Los Angeles (Dec. 1, 2016, B258090) [nonpub. opn.] (Native Plant II), we reversed the trial court's 2014 judgment on the GHG issue only, affirming the rest of the judgment.

New judgments and writs of mandate in Friends litigation and Native Plant litigation

After briefing by the parties in both cases and a joint hearing, the trial court filed judgments and writs of mandate in March 2017. In both cases, the writs of mandate directed the County to (1) void certification of only those portions of the EIR analyzing the significance of GHG emissions; (2) suspend any project activity, including construction, until the County corrects the GHG discussion; and (3) suspend the County's CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (collectively, the CEQA Conditions) until they arecorrected. The court specified that the CEQA Conditions were the only "project approvals" that directly relate to the EIR's GHG emissions analysis, and so only those documents needed to be corrected. The remaining approvals, referred to in this opinion as the Land Use Approvals, were not affected by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions, and so "no remedial action is required unless compliance with this Writ changes or affects" them.

Plaintiffs appealed both judgments.

DISCUSSION

All parties agree that the County's analysis of GHG emissions was deficient under the reasoning of Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 62 Cal.4th at pages 225-231. The key disagreement on appeal is whether the limited writ remedy imposed by the trial court is authorized under CEQA. Plaintiffs contend the trial court's writ of mandate violated CEQA because section 21168.9 does not permit a trial court to direct an agency to correct part of a final EIR while leaving all project approvals in place. They also argue that even if such a remedy is permissible under section 21168.9, it was an abuse of discretion to order such a remedy given the circumstances of this case. We reject both arguments, concluding our decision in Center for Biological Diversity III compels rejection of many of the points plaintiffs raise and their arguments on issues where Centerfor Biological Diversity III may not dictate a particular outcome are unavailing.

CEQA Overview

"'The basic purposes of CEQA are to: [¶] (1) Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities. [¶] (2) Identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. [¶] (3) Prevent significant,...