In Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles (2024) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, the Second District Court of Appeal held that the 90-day deadline for service of summons provided by the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) applied to CEQA claims challenging the sufficiency of mitigation measures adopted as conditions of approval of a vesting tentative map, but claims alleging violations of CEQA’s procedural requirements, which could not be brought under the SMA, were not subject to the SMA’s summons requirement.

Background

In 2018, a developer proposed to subdivide roughly 94 acres of open space in an unincorporated portion of the Santa Clarita Valley to develop 37 single-family homes, six public facilities, and two open space areas. To comply with CEQA, the County of Los Angeles prepared a mitigated negative declaration (MND) and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for the Project.

On March 15, 2022, the County adopted the MND for the Project and conditionally approved a vesting tentative map and related permits for the Project. Among other things, the conditions of approval of the vesting tentative map required compliance with the MMRP.  The County filed a Notice of Determination on March 22, 2022.

On April 20, 2022, Petitioner Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the County’s approval of the Project. The Petition’s first cause of action alleged that the County violated CEQA, and a second cause of action alleged that the County violated the Planning and Zoning Law and the SMA. Petitioner did not obtain or serve a summons when it filed the Petition.

The developer filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Petitioner was required under the SMA to serve a summons within 90 days of the Project approvals but failed to do so. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of the County and the developer on both causes of action. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the CEQA cause of action was not subject to the SMA’s summons requirement.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Second District reversed the judgment with respect to the CEQA cause of action, finding that some, but not all, of the CEQA claims were barred under the SMA.

Initially, the court acknowledged the complexity of determining whether a CEQA challenge to a tentative or final map approval is subject to the SMA’s summons requirement. The court therefore cautioned that petitioners bringing such challenges “proceed at their peril if they fail to obtain and serve a summons within 90 days of the approval.”

The court held that Petitioner’s challenges to the adequacy of the mitigation measures in the MMRP were subject to the SMA’s summons requirement, which is set forth in Government Code section 66499.37. That section imposes a 90-day limitations period for filing a lawsuit and serving a summons, where a party challenges a legislative body’s decision “concerning a subdivision” or “the reasonableness, legality, or validity of any condition attached [to an approval of a subdivision], including, but not limited to, the approval of a tentative map.” Because the County required compliance with the MMRP as a condition of approval of the vesting tentative map for the Project, the court reasoned that Petitioner’s challenges to the adequacy of the mitigation measures necessarily concerned the “reasonableness” of a “condition attached [to an approval of a subdivision].” Accordingly, the court determined that those challenges were within the scope of the SMA.

By contrast, the court held that Petitioner’s claims alleging procedural CEQA violations were not within the scope of the SMA, and therefore not subject to the SMA’s summons requirement. In doing so, the court rejected the respondents’ argument that Government Code section 66499.37 applies to any challenge to a decision “concerning a subdivision.” Citing the statutory language, legislative history and intent, and relevant case law, the court explained that section 66499.37 only applies to challenges that could have been brought under the SMA or that overlap with an SMA claim. Because Petitioner’s procedural CEQA challenges were unique to CEQA and did not arise from or involve any controversy under the SMA, the court determined that those challenges were not subject to section 66499.37.

Accordingly, the court concluded that the trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings in its entirety. Acknowledging that a trial court may not grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to only part of a cause of action, the court reversed the judgment and directed the trial court to deny the motion as to the CEQA cause of action.

– Blaine R. Dyas