Save Laurel Way v. City of Redwood City
A147942M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 22, 2017Background
- Laurel Way Joint Venture (LWJV) owns 14 interests in 18 lots on a partly unpaved private street in Redwood City; the City approved a Phase I planned development permit (PDP) for infrastructure (road, utilities, drainage, landscaping) but not for construction of homes.
- The City prepared and certified an EIR for the Project; Phase II (individual house construction) is conditioned on completion and approval of Phase I and later permits.
- Save Laurel Way (SLW) petitioned for a writ and injunction, alleging among other claims violations of the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) and CEQA; the trial court set aside the PDP and vacated the EIR certification, concluding the City abused its discretion by not evaluating whether the 1926 subdivision created legal lots under the SMA.
- LWJV appealed, arguing the SMA was not triggered by the City’s approval of Phase I infrastructure and that SMA issues are not ripe for adjudication at this stage.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding SMA issues were not ripe because the PDP authorized only infrastructure and did not authorize construction of homes or sales that would trigger SMA prohibitions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (SLW) | Defendant/Real Party's Argument (City / LWJV) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City was required to evaluate lot legality under the SMA before issuing the Phase I PDP | The City abused discretion by not determining whether the 18 lots were lawful under the SMA; approval required prior SMA analysis | The PDP authorizes only infrastructure; SMA prohibitions apply to sale/financing/commencement of building, not to issuing development permits for infrastructure | Reversed trial court: SMA was not implicated by Phase I PDP; City did not need to resolve lot legality now |
| Ripeness of SMA claims | SMA issues are ripe because the City’s PDP and EIR assume developability of each lot | SMA issues are speculative until Phase II permits or certificates of compliance are sought; judicial resolution now would be advisory | SMA issues are not ripe; courts should avoid advisory rulings on hypothetical future disputes |
| Whether certifying the EIR required resolving SMA compliance | EIR relied on assumption owners could develop lots; thus certification implicated SMA | CEQA/EIR certification for infrastructure does not require adjudication of underlying lot legality under the SMA | Certification of the EIR was not invalid on the ground City failed to resolve SMA issues; EIR for Phase I was permissible |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in vacating the PDP/EIR | Trial court properly set aside approvals for failure to consider SMA | City’s findings under municipal code (nonconforming lots) and phased approach show no prejudicial abuse as to Phase I | Trial court’s ultimate relief was overturned: vacatur was premature because SMA relief was not sought or necessary at this phase |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com., 33 Cal.3d 158 (ripeness doctrine; courts should avoid advisory opinions)
- Gardner v. County of Sonoma, 29 Cal.4th 990 (interpretation of SMA grandfather clause)
- Abernathy Valley, Inc. v. County of Solano, 173 Cal.App.4th 42 (historical maps insufficiently detailed to qualify for SMA grandfathering)
- Witt Home Ranch, Inc. v. County of Sonoma, 165 Cal.App.4th 543 (early subdivision laws did not regulate design and improvement within modern SMA meaning)
- Hays v. Vanek, 217 Cal.App.3d 271 (treatment of 1926 map under preexisting subdivision law)
- Save Mount Diablo v. Contra Costa County, 240 Cal.App.4th 1368 (certificate-of-compliance and SMA procedures)