Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 20STCP03844, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCP03844 Hearing Date: April 26, 2024 Dept: 82
United
Neighborhoods for Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles
Case
No. 20STCP03844
Order
Granting Motion to Discharge Writ of Mandate
BACKGROUND
In
this action brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”), Petitioner United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles (“Petitioner”) challenged
the decision of Respondent City of Los Angeles (“Respondent” or “City”) to
approve the construction of a hotel at 1719-1731 North Whitley Avenue (the
“Project”) in the City. On December 1,
2021, the court (Judge Mitchell Beckloff) granted the petition on the grounds
that City prejudicially abused its discretion in concluding that the Project
qualified for the Class 32 in-fill development project exemption under
CEQA. On May 27, 2022, the court entered
a judgment in favor of Petitioner, and on June 22, 2022, the court issued a
writ directing City to set aside its determination that the Project is
categorically exempt from CEQA.
The court’s judgment was affirmed on
appeal and the remittitur was filed on October 3, 2023. (See Neighborhoods v. City of Los Angeles (2023) 93
Cal.App.5th 1075, 1093-98.) The Court held that it could not determine whether
or how the City considered the Project’s consistency with applicable Housing
Element policies, such that it could find the Project satisfied the Class 32
exemption. (Id. at 1098 [“we affirm the trial court’s judgment because
we cannot defer to the City's ‘weigh[ing] and balanc[ing] [of] the [General]
[P]lan’s policies’ where there is no indication the City weighed and balanced
all applicable policies.”].) Issuance of
the writ “effectively halt[s] the Project until the City were to find the
Project is consistent with [the General Plan] policy [concerning the
preservation of affordable housing]” or “undertakes CEQA review.” (Id., p. 1081.)
On
January 31, 2024, Respondent filed a return stating that it had complied with
the writ. That same date, Respondent filed
the instant motion for an order discharging the writ. Petitioner objects to the return and opposes
the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
“When a respondent
believes it has completely fulfilled the terms of a writ, its return should
state that it has satisfied the writ in full compliance with the final judgment
and writ, and set out the actions taken to meet the writ's terms.” (Los
Angeles Internat. Charter High School. V. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2012)
209 Cal.App.4th 1348, 1355.)
In a CEQA action, “[t]he
trial court shall retain jurisdiction over the public agency’s proceedings by
way of a return to the peremptory writ until the court has determined that the
public agency has complied with [CEQA].”
(Pub. Res. Code § 21168.9(b).) The
court “review[s] the adequacy of the City's return under an abuse of discretion
standard of review because the ‘attempt to comply with the writ is, for all
practical purposes, an attempt to comply with CEQA.’ [Citation.] In this
context, an abuse of discretion ‘is established ‘if the agency has not
proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision
is not supported by substantial evidence.’ [Citation.].” (McCann v. City of San Diego (2023) 94
Cal.App.5th 284, 292.)
“Section 21168.9,
subdivision (c), confers equitable powers on the trial court to issue orders to
compel compliance with a peremptory writ of mandate …, but once an agency has
fully satisfied the writ, the trial court no longer has continuing jurisdiction
over the matter.” (McCann, supra, 94
Cal.App.5th at 293.)
DISCUSSION
The
writ issued by the court commanded Respondent to: “Set aside your determination
in Case nos. DIR-2016-4920-SPR and CEQA ENV2016-4921-CE that the Project
located at 1719-1731 North Whitley Avenue is categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act and set aside any other permit, license,
or approval issued or granted for the Project located at 1719-1731 North
Whitley Avenue, Case Number DIR-2016-4920-SPR-1A, in reliance thereupon.” (Teller Decl. ¶ 4 and Exh. C.) The writ also required Respondent to: “File
and serve a return to this writ no later than 120 days after the entry of
judgment in this proceeding. The return shall specify the actions taken to
comply with the terms of this writ.” (Teller
Decl. ¶ 4 and Exh. C.) The judgment also
stated that “Respondent and Real Parties in Interest and any and all of their
assigns, agents, contractors, employees, owners, directors, partners, or any
other person on their behalf, are hereby enjoined from taking any action to
implement the Whitley Hotel Project and from taking an action to construct the
Whitley Hotel Project, until such time as Respondents have conformed to all
legal requirements as ordered by the Court.”
(Id. Exh. B.)
On
January 31, 2024, Respondent filed a return, which was supported by a
declaration of attorney Sabrina Teller. According
to the return and Teller declaration, on December 8, 2023, Respondent issued a “Letter
to Rescind Determination” in Case Nos. DIR2016-4920-SPR and ENV-2016-4921-CE to
comply with the writ. The letter states that “the August 1, 2019 determination
letter and the Categorical Exemption are hereby set aside and rescinded.” (Teller Decl. ¶ 6 and Exh. F.) The writ and judgment did not direct
Respondent to make any further determinations or perform any other actions
aside from rescinding the approvals and halting further activity on the Project
until Respondent complies with the writ.
The Letter to Rescind Determination demonstrates compliance with the
writ. Further, there is no evidence that
Respondent or the Real Parties took any action to implement or construct the
Project prior to the court’s discharge of the writ. Petitioner does not dispute that Respondent
set aside the challenged determination that the Project is categorically exempt
from CEQA. Accordingly, Respondent is
entitled to an order discharging the writ.
Petitioner’s
objections do not compel a different result.
Petitioner asserts that “Petitioner made one claim in its lawsuit, that
the Respondent’s finding that the Whitley Hotel Project was categorically
exempt from CEQA was unlawful, and they prevailed on that claim.” (Objection to Return ¶ 1.) This objection is irrelevant because, regardless
of whether Petitioner prevailed on all or only one of its claims, the evidence
shows that Respondent complied with the writ.
Accordingly, the first objection is overruled.
Petitioner
argues that “City has subsequently continued proceedings on the subject project
under the same council file and CEQA case numbers.” (Return ¶ 2.)
Petitioner “objects to the return to the writ to the extent that the
City has improperly relied on prior approvals that have been set aside … [and]
to the extent that the City continues to rely on the original materials and
application submitted by the project applicant, in particular to the extent
that they were made under prior applicable law.” (Ibid.; see also Oppo. 2.) These objections fall outside the scope of
the writ. The writ only directed
Respondent to rescind the Project approvals and findings at issue in this legal
action and file a return showing compliance with the writ. The writ did not direct the City to
exercise its discretion under applicable law in any particular manner or
reserve the court with continuing jurisdiction over any future determination
made by Respondent. The writ also did
not enjoin Respondent from relying on previously submitted Project application
materials or the prior Council file numbers.
To the contrary, the Court of Appeal expressly noted that the City has
the option of “find[ing] the Project is
consistent with [the General Plan] policy [concerning the preservation of
affordable housing].” (United
Neighborhoods, supra, 93 Cal.App.5th at p. 1081.) Accordingly, Petitioner’s second objection
is overruled.
Finally, Petitioner challenges the
contents of new Project approvals that Respondent has issued for the
Project. Petitioner states that Respondent
approved a new Whitley Hotel project on December 20, 2023, denied Petitioner’s
administrative appeal on April 9, 2024, and issued a Notice of CEQA Exemption
for the project. (Andrews Decl. ¶ 4.) Petitioner states that it has appealed the
project approvals and CEQA exemption determination to the City Council. (Ibid.)
Petitioner indicates that it may bring a subsequent action to challenge
the new Project approvals and it raises the concern that “the City is
attempting to set up a res judicata or collateral estoppel defense in any
subsequent judicial challenge to the new Whitley Hotel project approvals.” (Oppo. 3:1-3.)
This issue is not ripe for review at
this stage because Petitioner has not exhausted its appeals. Regardless, Petitioner
has not discussed any details concerning the new Project approvals, the CEQA
exemption issued by Respondent, or the basis for Petitioner’s administrative
appeal. Petitioner admits that it has
not yet filed a court action challenging the new Project approvals. Further, Petitioner has not submitted any
evidence or developed an argument that, in conflict with the return, Respondent
has issued new Project approvals in a manner that is non-compliant with the
judgment and writ issued by this court. Accordingly,
Petitioner’s objection to the return is speculative and not supported by
evidence.
Furthermore,
in similar circumstances, the Court of Appeal has rejected a contention that
the trial court, in ruling on an objection to a return, must determine the ways
in which res judicata or collateral estoppel may or may not affect future
Project approvals. (McCann, supra,
94 Cal.App.5th at 293 [“The discharge of the writ in this case … merely
reflects that the City has complied with mandates of the writ by rescinding the
project approvals”].) Similarly, this
court has no basis to determine how res judicata or collateral estoppel may or
may not apply to other Project approvals or to subsequent legal actions that
Petitioner may or may not file.
The undisputed evidence shows that
Respondent has complied with the writ. Accordingly,
the writ must be discharged.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based
upon the foregoing, the court orders as follows:
1. Respondent’s motion is granted.
2. The writ is discharged.
3. Respondent’s counsel shall provide
notice and file proof of service with the court.