Saunders v. City of L.A.

• Decision Date: 25 September 2012
• Docket Number: B232415
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: LUCILLE SAUNDERS et al. AND FIX THE CITY, Petitioners and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et. al., Defendants and Respondents.

LUCILLE SAUNDERS et al. AND FIX THE CITY, Petitioners and Appellants, v.CITY OF LOS ANGELES et. al., Defendants and Respondents.

B232415

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

Dated: September 25, 2012

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b).This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. BS115435)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, John A. Torribio, Judge.Affirmed.

Venskus & Associates, Sabrina D. Benskus and Emilee A. Moeller for Petitioners and AppellantsLucille Saunders et al.

Chatten-Brown & Carstens, Jan Chatten-Brown, Douglas P. Carstens, and Michelle N. Black for Petitioner and Appellant Fix the City.

Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Terry P. Kaufmann Macias, Deputy City Attorney, and Mary J. Decker, Deputy City Attorney for Defendants and Respondents City of Los Angeles et al.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioners and appellantsLucille Saunders¹ and Fix the City appeal from a judgment denying their respective petitions for writs of mandate.Saunders also appeals from that portion of the judgment denying her requests for injunctive and declaratory relief and her claim for violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).(Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)

We hold that the trial court properly concluded that the legal duties upon which Saunders and Fix the City based their claims were discretionary.Therefore, mandamus, injunctive, and declaratory relief were unavailable.We further hold that because substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding on Saunders's delayed discovery claim, the court correctly concluded that the statute of limitations barred Saunders's claim for relief under CEQA.And we reject the challenges on appeal to various evidentiary rulings of the trial court because there is no showing that those rulings prejudiced either Saunders or Fix The City.We therefore affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND²

A.The General Plan

Government Code section 65300 requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive general plan for future development.According to the City, its general plan is a "'constitution for development,' the foundation upon which all land usedecisions in a city or county are to be based.It expresses community development goals and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of future land use, both public and private.Pursuant to Government Code section 65350, a general plan must include the following seven mandated elements: (i) land use; (ii) circulation; (iii) housing; (iv) conservation; (v) noise; (vi) open space; and (vii) safety."In addition, Government Code section 65303 permits the inclusion of optional elements that address needs, objectives, or requirements of a county or city.From the City's perspective, counties and cities have flexibility in organizing their general plans, as long as all of the requirements specified for each of the seven mandated elements are addressed.State law has given a city with the diversity and size of Los Angeles latitude in formatting, adopting, and implementing its general plan, as long as it adheres to the minimum requirements of state law.

B.The Framework Element

In 1996, the City adopted an optional General Plan Framework Element (Framework Element) as part of its general plan.The Framework Element stated that it was "a strategy for long-term growth which set[] a citywide context to guide the update of the community plan and citywide elements.The [Framework] Element respond[ed] to [s]tate and [f]ederal mandates to plan for the future.In planning for the future, the City . . . [uses] population forecasts provided by the Southern California Association of Governments(SCAG).The Framework Element does not mandate or encourage growth.Because population forecasts are estimates about the future and not an exact science, it is possible that population growth as estimated may not occur: it may be less or it may be more.The City could be at the beginning of a long decline in population or at the beginning of a sharp increase."

Chapter 10 of the Framework Element identifies and describes the implementation programs for that optional Element.The introduction to Chapter 10 provides in pertinent part: "An implementation program is an action, procedure, program, or technique that carries out general plan policy.However, not all plan policies can be achieved in any given action, and in relation to any decision, some goals may be more compelling thanothers.On a decision-by-decision basis, taking into consideration factual circumstances, it is up to the decision makers to decide how to best implement the adopted policies of the general plan in any way which best serves the public health, safety, and general welfare."

Chapter 10 specifically provides that "[p]rogram implementation is contingent on the availability of adequate funding, which is likely to change over time due to economic conditions, the priorities of [f]ederal and regional governments and funding agencies, and other conditions.The [implementation] programs should be reviewed periodically and prioritized, where necessary, to reflect funding limitations and the City's objectives.In addition, amounts and sources of funding, initiation dates, responsible agencies and the detailed work scope of [implementation] programs may be changed without requesting amendments to the . . . Framework Element."

The executive summary of the Framework Element also provides that "[a] diversity of programs [is] specified to implement the . . . Framework Element's policies.Their timing is contingent on the availability of adequate funding."

Chapter 10 goes on to describe in excess of 60 implementation programs, including the two at issue in this case: Programs 42 and 43.Program 42 is an implementation "program to monitor the status of development activity, capabilities of infrastructure and public services to provide adequate levels of service, and environmental impacts (e.g., air emissions), identifying critical constraints, deficiencies and planned improvements (where appropriate)."Program 43 is an implementation program intended to generate an "Annual Report on Growth and Infrastructure [Annual Report] that documents the results of the annual monitoring program."

Program 43 specifically directs the City's Planning Department to "[p]repare an Annual Report on Growth and Infrastructure based on the results of the Monitoring Program, which will be published at the end of each fiscal year and shall include information such as population estimates and an inventory of new development.This report is intended to provide City staff, the City Council and service providers with information that can facilitate the programming and funding of capital improvements andservices.Additionally, this report will inform the general plan amendment process.Information shall be documented by relevant geographic boundaries, such as service areas, Community Plan Areas, or City Council Districts."

Chapter 1 of the Framework Element also discusses the Annual Report program."The Department of City Planning shall annually review the need to comprehensively update the citywide elements, including the Framework Element and the community plans.The results of this annual review shall be reported to the City Planning Commission, the City Council, and the Mayor through the Annual Report on Growth and Infrastructure.This report shall recommend which citywide element or community plan should be updated and why.These recommendations shall be based on an evaluation of changing circumstances, trends, and other information provided by the Monitoring System."

C.Prior Legal Challenges to the Framework Element

After the City adopted the Framework Element in 1996, a community association filed a lawsuit challenging the adoption of the final environmental impact report for and the approval of the Framework Element.(Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles(2000)83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1254(Federation I).)On appeal from the trial court's judgment denying the petition for writ of mandate, the Court of Appeal in Federation I concluded that "[t]here [was] no substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the mitigation measures have been 'required in, or incorporated into' . . . the [Framework Element] in the manner contemplated by CEQA, and the city failed to provide that the mitigation measures would actually be implemented under the [Framework Element] . . . ."(Id. at p. 1261.)The court in Federation I therefore reversed the judgment denying the petition for writ of mandate and remanded the matter with directions to grant the petition and vacate the City's approval of the Framework Element and specify what actions by the City were necessary to comply with CEQA.(Id. at p. 1267.)

On remand, the City vacated the Framework Element, adopted new CEQA findings and a statement of overriding considerations, and readopted the Framework Element in August 2001.(Federation of Hillside & Canyon Assns. v. City of Los Angeles(2004)126 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1191-1192(Federation II).)

In September 2001, a community association filed a second lawsuit challenging the readopted Framework Element and the City's new CEQA findings and statement of overriding considerations.(Federation II, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1193.)The trial court denied the petition for writ of mandate and on appeal from that judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed.(Id. at pp. 1193, 1207.)

D.Current Litigation

In June 2008, Saunders filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive...