Blomquist v. County of Santa Clara CA6

Filed 4/11/22 Blomquist v. County of Santa Clara CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JENNIFER BLOMQUIST et al., H045975 (Santa Clara County Plaintiffs and Appellants, Super. Ct. No. CV304201)

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA et al.,

Defendants and Respondents;

SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY et al.,

Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

Jennifer and Michael Blomquist petitioned for writ of mandate against the County of Santa Clara, a member of the board of supervisors, and several county employees, naming the San Jose Water Company and the San Jose Water Group as real parties in interest. The dispute relates to the approval and construction of a water storage tank near appellants’ property, and the associated relocation of an access road. The trial court sustained demurrers to the operative third amended petition, finding that the petition was fatally uncertain. Appellants argue that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer and, alternatively, that the trial court erred by not granting leave to amend. We will affirm the judgment of dismissal because appellants failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and have not demonstrated a reasonable possibility that further amendment would cure that defect.

I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS According to the third amended petition (operative petition), appellants own two parcels of land on La Mirada Road in unincorporated Santa Clara County. Appellants live in a house on one of the parcels, and the other is undeveloped. Real parties in interest the San Jose Water Company and San Jose Water Group (collectively, San Jose Water) own property near appellants’ parcels. San Jose Water sought to replace a water tank on its property with a larger water tank, and proposed that a part of La Mirada Road on San Jose Water’s property would be “slightly realigned within two fee title owned [San Jose Water] parcels.” The operative petition describes a “recorded road dedicated for public access and underlying public service easements” on San Jose Water’s property referred to as La Mirada Road. The petition states La Mirada Road is a “road for public use,” but the county “has not officially accepted La Mirada into County Roads for maintenance.” In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), a notice of determination for the tank replacement project was filed in March 2014 with the State Clearinghouse at the California Office of Planning and Research, indicating that a mitigated negative declaration was adopted and that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. The California Department of Public Health was the lead agency for the project under CEQA. Building permits for the project were issued by the county in March 2014 and March 2015. Representing themselves, appellants filed the initial petition for writ of mandate in December 2016. They named as respondents Santa Clara County, Supervisor Mike Wasserman, and several county employees (collectively, respondents). The San Jose Water Company and “SJW Group” were named as real parties in interest. Appellants filed a first amended petition, apparently before any responsive pleading was filed. The trial court sustained demurrers to the first amended petition on grounds of uncertainty and failure to state a cause of action, and granted leave to amend. Appellants filed a second 2