Conservancy v. Cnty. of Orange

SADDLEBACK CANYONS CONSERVANCY et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE et al., Defendants;RUTTER SANTIAGO LP, Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

G049040

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

March 11, 2015

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. Nos. 30-2012-00609766, 30-2013-00625000)

OPINION

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Steven L. Perk, Judge. Reversed. Motion to strike section III.B.1.c. from appellant's reply brief. Granted.

Perkins Coie, Stephen L. Kostka, Barbara J. Schussman; Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Susan Hori and Roger Grable for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Ellison Folk and Edward T. Schexnayder for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

* * *

INTRODUCTION

The Orange County Board of Supervisors (the Board) approved the Saddle Crest Homes area project (the Project), and also approved amendments to the Orange County general plan (the General Plan) and the "Foothill/Trabuco Specific Plan" (the Specific Plan), which covers the area in which the Project is to be built. Environmental and community groups brought suit. After a hearing, the court entered judgment against the County of Orange (the County) and the Board, preventing the Project from moving forward. Rutter Santiago LP (Rutter Santiago), the developer of the Project and a real party in interest, appeals from the judgment.

We reverse. Having reviewed the Board's actions in certifying an environmental impact report (EIR) for the Project, approving the Project, and amending the General Plan and the Specific Plan, we find no prejudicial abuse of discretion on the part of the Board. Its actions and findings were supported by substantial evidence, were not arbitrary or capricious, and were consistent with the General Plan.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Project is located in an unincorporated portion of Orange County in an area subject to the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan was adopted in 1991. The General Plan designates the Project site as suburban residential, which allows development of 0.5 to 18 dwelling units per acre. The Cleveland National Forest is north of the Project site. East of the Project site is a 78-residence development known as Santiago Canyon Estates, which was approved before the approval of the Specific Plan and was grandfathered into the Specific Plan. Santiago Canyon Road is immediately to the west of the Project, andthe Limestone-Whiting Wilderness Park and the Portola Hills residential community lie west and south of the Project site, on the other side of Santiago Canyon Road; Portola Hills, which is a part of the City of Lake Forest, was in existence before the Specific Plan was approved.

In 2003, Rutter Santiago proposed to develop the Project site, as well as three other sites near Santiago Canyon Road. The Board approved the development plan, certified an EIR, and approved a zoning change to the Specific Plan. This court, however, set aside the Board's approvals and certification. (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777 (Endangered Habitats League).)

After this court's opinion became final, Rutter Santiago sold over 300 acres of the Project site to The Conservation Fund, and about 84 acres of the Project site to the Orange County Transportation Authority. These areas are now designated as conservation sites.

Rutter Santiago then designed a new project on a 113-acre parcel, which would have 65 homes on about 34 acres. The remainder of the parcel will be set aside for open space.

In addition to requesting approval of the Project itself, Rutter Santiago had also sought approval of various amendments to the General Plan and the Specific Plan. These included:

1. An amendment to the General Plan's transportation implementation manual to change the methodology used to forecast the level of service on Santiago Canyon Road.

2. An amendment to the General Plan to change the land use element to provide: "The purpose of the New Development Compatibility Policy is to ensure that new development is compatible with adjacent areas and that it provides either a land use buffer or transition to reduce the effects of one land use on the other. [¶] Sensitivetreatment is required where one urban use transitions to another and where an urban use is introduced into an essentially undeveloped area. [¶] New development within the Foothill-Trabuco Specific Plan planning area shall be designed to maintain a buffer between urban development and the Cleveland National Forest, to be compatible with the area, and to reflect the goals and objectives of that Plan."

3. An amendment to the General Plan regarding interpretation of the General Plan and the Specific Plan and consideration of environmental consequences of proposed development actions.

4. An amendment to the Specific Plan acknowledging changes in the County and advances in scientific and technical information since the adoption of the Specific Plan.

5. An amendment to the Specific Plan, which would allow alternative standards for grading and lot size to be approved if the alternative standards would implement the Specific Plan's goals in ways that would provide greater overall protection of environmental resources than the default standards.

6. Amendments to the Specific Plan to improve the effectiveness of its oak tree mitigation standards.

7. An amendment to the open space regulation in the Specific Plan, providing that the 66 percent of land on a developed site, which must be preserved as open space, need not be only untouched "natural" open space, but may also include other open space as well.

The County prepared a draft EIR and a final EIR, which included comments to the draft EIR and the County's responses to those comments. The County's planning commission held two hearings on the EIR and the Project. The planning commission ultimately recommended that the Board certify the final EIR, approve the amendments to the General Plan and the Specific Plan, and approve the Project.

On October 2, 2012, at a regularly scheduled meeting, the Board certified the final EIR (resolution No. 12-147), adopted the amendments to the General Plan (resolution No. 12-148) and the Specific Plan (ordinance No. 12-031), and approved the Project (resolution No. 12-149). As is relevant to the present appeal, the Board made the following specific findings:

"1. Approval of the Saddle Crest Homes Area Plan ('Area Plan') is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

"2. The Area Plan is consistent with the objectives, policies and general land uses and programs of the General Plan.

"3. The Area Plan is consistent with the Transportation Element of the General Plan, as amended, including, but not limited to, the Level of Service policy and Scenic Highways viewscape corridor component applicable to Santiago Canyon Road[.]

"4. The Area Plan is consistent with the Goals and Objectives of the Foothill/Trabuco Specific Plan, including, but not limited to the goals and objectives relating to preservation of the rural character of the area, the provision of a buffer between urban development and the Cleveland National Forest, the preservation of significant landform, biological and scenic resources.

"5. The Area Plan is in compliance with all applicable Foothill/Trabuco Specific Plan Components and Regulations, as amended.

"6. The Area Plan complies with the Foothill/Trabuco Specific Plan Upper Aliso Residential District regulations, as amended, and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Upper Aliso Residential District regulations.

"7. The Area Plan is inconsistent with some of the Foothill/Trabuco Specific Plan Guidelines, but is in over all compliance with the Foothill/Trabuco Specific Plan Guidelines.

"8. The uses, activities and improvements proposed, subject to the specified conditions of approval, are consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code and the Foothill/Trabuco Specific Plan regulations applicable to the property.

"9. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the use proposed in the Area Plan will not create conditions or situations that may be incompatible with other permitted uses in the vicinity."

On October 31, 2012, Saddleback Canyons Conservancy, Rural Canyons Conservation Fund, Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks, and National Audubon Society, each of which is an unincorporated association, nonprofit organization, or corporation dedicated to protecting natural resources and the environment (collectively, Saddleback), filed a verified petition for a writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive relief, challenging the approval of amendments to the General Plan and the Specific Plan, the approval of the Project, and the certification of the EIR. A first amended petition and complaint was filed on December 5, 2012.

On January 18, 2013, Saddleback filed a verified petition for a writ of mandate and a complaint for injunctive relief, challenging the approval of the tract map for the Project. Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the two cases were consolidated for all purposes.

Following briefing and a hearing, the trial court granted the petition for a writ of mandate, ordered the County and the Board to vacate and set aside certification of the EIR, amendments to the General Plan and the Specific Plan, and approvals for the Project, and enjoined the County and the Board from further actions to implement the Project without complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). The peremptory writ issued,...