Judge David J. Cowan, Case 22STCP01579 2022-11-10 Tentative Ruling

Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles (22STCP01579); Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (22STCP01357); Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (21STCP01446)

On April 26, 2022, Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment (the “Organization”) filed a Notice of Related Case indicating case 21STCP01446 is related to case 22STCP01357. On May 4, 2022, Judge Mary H. Strobel deemed cases 21STCP01446 and 22STCP01357 related. That same day, the Organization filed a Notice of Related Case indicating case 22STCP01579 is related to cases 21STCP01446 and 22STCP01357. On May 5, 2022, Judge Maurice A. Leiter denied relation of case 22STCP01579 to cases 21STCP01446 and 22STCP01357.

On October 14, 2022, the Organization filed a Motion to Relate Cases in Department 1, seeking an order relating case 22STCP01579 to cases 21STCP01446 and 22STCP01357. (CRC 3.300(h)(1)(D) (authorizing the Supervising Judge of the Civil Division to relate cases upon motion after relation is denied under 3.300(h)(1)(A)-(C).) No Opposition has been filed.

Cases are related when they (1) involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims, (2) arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, (3) involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property, or (4) are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (CRC 3.300(a).) The Motion to Relate asserts the cases are related on all four grounds.

On April 26, 2022, the Organization filed a Notice of Related Case indicating case 21STCP01446 is related to case 22STCP01357.

On May 4, 2022, Judge Strobel deemed case 21STCP01446 related to case 22STCP01357.

On August 15, 2022, Judge Strobel entered judgment in favor of the Board and County, denying the Petition.

On September 19, 2022, the Organization filed a Notice of Appeal of the judgment.

· Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (22STCP01357) -- initiated on April 15, 2022 when the Organization filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief against the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and Does 1-20. The Petition alleges the Board "approved an Ordinance amending County Code, Title 22 - Planning and Zoning" without "adequately describ[ing]" the Ordinance in the agenda for its public hearing on February 15, 2022. The Petition alleges the Board's approval of the Ordinance violated Gov. Code sec. 54950 et seq., asserting the Board was prohibited from taking action on items not described in the agenda for the meeting.

On May 4, 2022, the Organization filed a Notice of Related Case indicating case 22STCP01579 is related to cases 21STCP01446 and 22STCP01357.

On May 5, 2022, Judge Leiter concluded case 22STCP01579 is not related to cases 21STCP01446 and 22STCP01357.

On October 14, 2022, the Organization filed a Motion to Relate Cases in Department 1, seeking an order relating case 22STCP01579 to cases 21STCP01446 and 22STCP01357.

This case is pending in Department 82 of the Stanley Mosk courthouse with the next hearing set for May 23, 2023 on the Petition for Writ of Mandate.

· Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles (22STCP01579) -- initiated on April 28, 2022 when the Organization filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate against the County of Los Angeles and Does 1-20. The Petition "challenges the County's determination" that the Tune Up Ordinance is "exempt from environmental review under CEQA." The Petition alleges the Board adopted the Tune Up Ordinance on February 15, 2022 and "determined that the Project was exempt from CEQA." The Board allegedly "concluded that the project qualified for a Categorical Exemption under CEQA Guideline relating to "minor alterations and land use limitations" and a "common-sense exemption." The "County filed a Notice of Exemption with the County Recorder on March 24, 2022.” The Organization seeks writs of mandate requiring the County to “set aside approvals” of the Tune Up Ordinance and prepare “a legally adequate environmental review.”

This case is pending in Department 20 of the Stanley Mosk courthouse with a Trial Setting Conference set for January 6, 2023.

Upon review, the Court finds case 22STCP01579 is not related to cases 21STCP01446 and 22STCP01357, and DENIES the Motion.

The Organization argues the cases are related because the cases “involve the same ‘Tune Up Ordinance’” affecting the Oak Tree Ordinance among other “modifications to . . . planning and zoning ordinances.” In case 21STCP01446, the Organization challenges the Board’s decision to “adopt[] various amendments” to the County’s Zoning Code on the grounds “that the agenda description for that meeting violated the Brown Act, asserting ‘the public was never notified that the Board would be taking action on a substantial change to the Oak Tree Ordinance.’” In the same vein, case 22STCP01357 challenged the Board’s adoption of the Tune Up Ordinance after a public meeting on February 15, 2022, asserting that the agenda did not adequately describe the Board’s intent to change the Oak Tree Ordinance. Judge Strobel related both of these cases. The Organization then filed case 22STCP01579, challenging the County’s determination that the Tune Up Ordinance was exempt from CEQA review.[1]

All three cases involve the Organization and the County (though the Board is only a party to the two earlier-filed cases), but the Organization is not asserting the “same or similar claims” in case 22STCP01579. (CRC 3.300(a)(1).) In cases 21STCP01446 and 22STCP01357, the Organization seeks relief concerning the Board’s adoption of amendments to the Oak Tree Ordinance after public hearings in February 2021 and 2022, asserting violations of the Brown Act relating to the Board’s agenda descriptions of the Tune Up Ordinance. By contrast, in case 22STCP01579, the Organization seeks relief reversing the County’s determination that the Tune Up Ordinance is CEQA-exempt, and does not rely on the Brown Act at all.

Case 22STCP01579 arguably arises out of “the same or substantially identical events” giving rise to cases 21STCP01446 and 22STCP01357—i.e., the Board’s adoption of the Tune Up Ordinance—though alleges further facts regarding the determination that the Ordinance is CEQA-exempt. (CRC 3.300(a)(2).) But the cases do not require determination of overlapping legal or factual issues. The Petition in 22STCP01579 requires determination of whether the Tune Up Ordinance is "eligible for [a] Class 5 exemption" or "common-sense exemption" from CEQA review. The Organization asserts a Class 5 exemption "shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances," and contends “there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” (22STCP01579 Petition, para. 27-28.) The Organization also asserts the "common-sense exemption" does not apply unless the County "refute[s] the claims that the [Ordinance] will have a significant effect on the environment to a certainty." (22STCP01579 Petition, para. 29.)

By contrast, the Petitions in 21STCP01446 and 22STCP01357 require(d) determination of whether the Board violated the Brown Act by taking actions on the Tune Up Ordinance on February 23, 2021 and February 15, 2022 without adequately describing those intended actions in meeting agendas. Neither Petition required consideration of whether the Tune Up Ordinance “will have a significant effect on the environment”—rather, the Petitions focused on whether the changes to the Oak Tree Ordinance were “significant” or “substantive” as opposed to merely technical or ministerial changes. Though the Organization argues the cases involve “virtually identical issues,” case 22STCP01579 does not involve any issues under the Brown Act, instead hinging on whether the Tune Up Ordinance was properly deemed CEQA-exempt in light of potentially “significant effect[s] on the environment.”

The Organization notes that Judge Strobel already “rejected the argument that the Tune Up Ordinance made any significant changes” in denying the Petition in case 21STCP01446, and found that the Organization had “not shown a substantive change that would impact analysis under CEQA.” (7-21-22 Order, p. 17-18.) But these determinations related to whether the changes to the Oak Tree Ordinance were substantive or technical—not whether those changes would have a “significant effect on the environment,” the relevant issue for CEQA-exempt status. Given the distinct issues in each case, there is no apparent risk of conflicting rulings.

Finally, the cases are not likely to require “substantial duplication of judicial resources” if determined separately. (CRC 3.300(a)(4).) Case 21STCP01446 is not now pending; Judge Strobel entered judgment for the Board and County. Though that judgment is pending appeal, no gains in efficiency would be achieved by now relating concluded case 21STCP01446 to pending case 22STCP01579. In turn, case 22STCP01357 is pending, but will not require “substantial duplication of judicial resources if kept separate from case 22STCP01579. The Petition in 22STCP01357 challenges the Board’s adoption of the Tune Up Ordinance based on defects in the Board’s agenda for the February 15, 2022 meeting under the Brown Act. The Petition in 22STCP01579 challenges the County’s CEQA exemption determination for the Tune Up Ordinance based on potentially “significant effect[s] on the environment” from changes to the Oak Tree Ordinance. The issues are sufficiently distinct as to not require duplication of judicial resources to resolve.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are encouraged to appear remotely.

[1] Though the Board is not named as a respondent, the Petition alleges the “Board of Supervisors . . . determined that the Project was exempt from CEQA.”