Save Our Rural Town v. Cnty. of A.
| Decision Date | 10 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | B294182 |
| Parties | SAVE OUR RURAL TOWN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Appellants; DOUGLAS GAUDI et al., Real Parties in Interest and Appellants. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. BS166732)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mary H. Strobel, Judge. Affirmed, in part; remanded, in part.
Jackson Tidus, Alene M. Taber, Ballard Spahr, Brian D. Huben, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Dušan Pavlovic, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Appellant County of Los Angeles.
Poole & Shaffery, Hunt Braly, for Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
____________________
Appellants and cross-respondents are the County of Los Angeles (County), together with real parties in interest Douglas and Joanna Gaudi, Paul Zerounian, and Robert Friedman (Applicants). Respondent and cross-appellant is Save Our Rural Town (SORT). The trial court issued a judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandate on SORT's first cause of action for violation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (CEQA),1 and dismissing SORT's second through seventh causes of action. The County and Applicants appealed, seeking clarification of the trial court'swrit of mandate. SORT argues that the appeal should be dismissed. Following the appeal filed by the County and Applicants, SORT filed a cross-appeal, asking this court to reverse the trial court's determination that two of SORT's CEQA claims were not supported by substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Applicants' proposed project would have a significant impact on the environment. SORT also contends the court erroneously found there was substantial evidence supporting the County's findings that the project was consistent with applicable land use plans and zoning.
We dismiss the appeal filed by the County and Applicants, because they have not sought any form of relief available on appeal. We agree with SORT that there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the two areas discussed in the briefing may cause a significant environmental impact. We reject the rest of the arguments made in SORT's cross-appeal.
Our description of the factual and procedural background draws heavily from the trial court's extensive and detailed written ruling.
Applicants seek to develop a parcel of real property in the rural community of Acton, located in an unincorporatedarea of Los Angeles County, in the southwestern portion of the Antelope Valley, south of the City of Palmdale, along the 14 Freeway. The proposed project (the Project) would include a 3,300 square foot restaurant providing both dine-in and drive-through service, a 6,000 square foot retail building, and storage facilities.
Between 2014 and 2017, the Project went through two separate but overlapping approval processes with the Planning Commission, each time with an appeal to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (the Board).
The Applicants sought a conditional use permit (the 2014 CUP) for the Project. The Planning Commission prepared an initial study and proposed certifying a negative declaration under CEQA. As will be explained in more detail later, there were two traffic studies—one dated January 20, 2015 and a second dated August 5, 2015—but only the earlier traffic study was made available to the public. In April 2016, the Planning Commission certified a negative declaration and approved the 2014 CUP without the drive-through restaurant portion of the Project. Explaining its decision to approve the Project without the drive-through, the Planning Commission stated that while adrive-through was not a "high-intensity use," it would be disruptive to Acton's rural character because the property is adjacent to the 14 Freeway, and therefore would provide a convenient dining option that would attract travelers.
Zerounian, the restaurant owner, appealed the Planning Commission's decision to eliminate the drive-through from the Project, bringing the matter to the Board. By November 2016, the Board had certified the negative declaration, and adopted findings and conditions stating, in relevant part, that even with the drive-through, the 2014 CUP and Project: (1) would not draw substantial traffic from the freeway; (2) is consistent with the Antelope Valley Area Plan; and (3) complies with the County's zoning codes.
In February 2016, while the 2014 CUP application was still pending before the Planning Commission, the Applicants initiated a second proceeding by seeking approval to subdivide the property, separating the retail building and the drive-through restaurant into two separate parcels (the Parcel Split). In February 2017, the Planning Commission approved the Parcel Split and certified an addendum to the negative declaration for the 2014 CUP. SORT appealed, bringing the matter to the Board. In October 2017, the Board adopted findings that (1) the Parcel Split did not change the scope or nature of the 2014 CUP and did not result in significant environmental effects not discussed inthe negative declaration for the 2014 CUP, and (2) that no new information of substantial importance arose related to the Parcel Split that would result in significant environmental impacts not discussed in the negative declaration.
Shortly after the Board approved the 2014 CUP, SORT filed its initial petition for writ of mandate. A first amended petition was filed after the Board approved the Parcel Split. On July 27, 2018, the court issued a detailed written ruling. It concluded that the County violated CEQA when it failed to make the August 4, 2015 traffic study available to the public before the certifying the negative declaration and approving the 2014 CUP with a drive-through. The court further found that SORT had identified substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the overall Project (referring to both the 2014 CUP approval and the Parcel Split) may cause significant transportation impacts. Specifically, the court found substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may require installation of traffic signals, and the County had not analyzed that potential traffic impact. There was also substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project might exacerbate pedestrian hazards, which the County also failed to analyze in its initial study. The trial court rejected a number of SORT's other arguments, finding insufficient evidence to support a fairargument, including two arguments relevant to this appeal: (1) that the Project would cause traffic delays at a specific intersection in Acton; and (2) the Project would cause specified traffic delays based on the number of cars anticipated to use the drive-through during peak hours.
After each party submitted a proposed judgment and filed objections to the other party's proposed judgment, the court held a hearing on September 18, 2018, to address the proper form of judgment. Focusing on the differences between the two proposed judgments, in particular whether the judgment should void the Board's land use approvals in whole or in part, the court asked the parties "once the court concludes there's a fair argument, that there's substantial evidence of a fair argument, doesn't that mean the County has to do an EIR [environmental impact report]?" Applicants argued that under section 21168.9 and Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1245, 1255 (Center for Biological Diversity), courts have "broad latitude and flexibility in terms of how to fashion the appropriate relief to ensure compliance with CEQA." Applicants argued that the nature of the court's ruling on the traffic impact issues left open the possibility that the County could proceed with one of three options: a negative declaration, a mitigated negative declaration (MND), or an EIR. Acknowledging that the procedural error of failing to make the August 4, 2015 traffic study available to the public was a different question, the court pressed further, asking how a negative declaration would be possibleonce the court had found substantial evidence of a fair argument on two specific issues—traffic signals and pedestrian safety. Applicants argued that a revised traffic study would analyze those two issues, comparing the court's ruling to a "fix-it ticket," that should direct the Applicants to fix the identified issues and nothing more, similar to the project proponents in Center for Biological Diversity. SORT argued that Center for Biological Diversity was distinguishable, because there the court had made severance findings under section 21168.9, while Applicants here had not requested severance findings.
On October 3, 2018, the trial court entered judgment in favor of SORT on its first cause of action (CEQA violation), and issued a writ of mandate which, after handwritten interlineation, directed the County to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial