City of Brea v. City of Industry
Filed 8/11/06 City of Brea v. City of Industry CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| CITY OF BREA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF INDUSTRY, Defendant and Respondent; TONNER CANYON, LLC, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. | E038134 (Super.Ct.No. RIC419914) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Stephen D. Cunnison, Judge. Affirmed.
Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, Douglas J. Evertz and Jeffrey T. Robbins for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Michele R. Vadon, Stephen R. Onstot and Donald M. Davis for Defendant and Respondent.
Latham & Watkins, James L. Arnone and Stephanie E. Ord for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
The City of Brea, plaintiff and appellant (hereafter Brea), appeals from the judgment entered against it and in favor of defendant and respondent, the City of Industry (Industry), on Brea's combined petition for writ of mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.[1] In the petition Brea alleged, in pertinent part, that on July 22, 2004, Industry adopted Resolution No. 2051, which authorized it to purchase 525 acres of land in Tonner Canyon (the Tonner Canyon Property) from Tonner Canyon, LLC, the real party in interest; Industry adopted Resolution No. 2051 without properly complying with CEQA in that the resolution approved a negative declaration and also included findings by Industry that its purchase of the subject property was categorically exempt under the pertinent CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq., referred to hereafter as Guidelines); Industry had previously acquired other land in the same area (identified in the complaint as the Firestone Scout Reservation and the Tres Hermanos Property) all of which is in an environmentally sensitive corridor; in approving the negative declaration and the categorical exemption findings, Industry stated that the subject property was being purchased to preserve the land as open space and to maintain emergency access to the Firestone Scout Reservation; and Industry's real motivation is to develop a dam and water reservoir project on the Tonner Canyon Property, the Firestone Scout Reservation, and the Tres Hermanos Property.[2]
Following a hearing on March 28, 2005, the trial court denied Brea's writ petition. The trial court found, contrary to Brea's allegation that Industry had evidence in its possession that it had wrongly excluded from the administrative record, that there was no evidence to show Industry had any definite plans for the Tonner Canyon Property at the present time, and that Industry's purchase of the Tonner Canyon Property is not a â€
