A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge sided with the city of Santa Clarita in a fight with residents over the Wiley Canyon development, but he left 30 days for the plaintiff to amend its case.
R. Weston Monroe, who is the named plaintiff, has taken the city of Santa Clarita to court over his claims the city has essentially permitted a “phantom entity.”
Due to a November vote by the City Council, the former home of the Smiser Mule Ranch — between Wiley Canyon Road and Interstate 5, north of Calgrove Boulevard — is set to become home to 232 condos in two-story buildings, and 120 assisted-living units. The assisted-living units are coming in a 140,000-square-foot facility, which would also have about a quarter-acre of commercial space and eight accessory dwelling units.
The city held five hearings on the project — the maximum allowable by law — and expanded the environmental impact report, after receiving more than 500 comments during the public-input period on the 31-acre property.
A number of residents spoke positively about the traffic improvements it would bring, including sidewalks and signaled intersections on a street right next to a freeway, where none existed. Those opposed had numerous concerns about how those road improvements might impact traffic and circulation in a canyon area considered prone to emergencies in a very high fire hazard severity zone.
The city, which is the official defendant in the action as the authorizing party, has declined to comment due to the situation being a part of active litigation.
Monroe’s legal challenge involved a writ seeking to invalidate the council’s approval.
“Monroe asserts that the city’s reluctance to clearly identify an existing corporate entity, instead substituting in a law firm that often represents Lennar Corp. as the real party in interest, has contributed to the confusion surrounding this critical issue in the proceedings,” according to a previous email from project opponent Annette Lucas.
Lennar has not responded to a request for comment about the project.
City officials previously indicated Tom Clark’s partner on the project, Sheridan Ebbert Development, would be involved, after Clark died in January.
Attorneys from Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance, who were “specially appearing” on behalf of Wiley Canyon LLC, filed “a request for judicial notice in support of specially appearing Wiley Canyon LLC’s motion to dismiss (Monroe’s) verified petition for writ of mandate.”
In his ruling, Takasugi agreed with the specially appearing attorneys, who pointed out that Wiley Canyon is a necessary party to Monroe’s action, which fails without that party.
“The city argues that the action fails because it failed to join Wiley Cyn LLC as a necessary and indispensable party,” according to Takasugi’s ruling. “The city contends that Wiley Cyn LLC also cannot be joined to this action now due to expiration of the statute of limitations. Moreover, the city argues that the (first amended plaintiff) is uncertain and unintelligible.”
Takasugi also called for more specific proof of any alleged Brown Act or California Public Records Act violations, agreeing with the city that Monroe’s claims are “uncertain and ambiguous.”
Monroe previously expressed difficulty in finding any actual record of an entity that represents Wiley Canyon LLC, with previous filings on record, up until late December, indicating the entity was tied to a Sylmar address that did not appear to be associated with Wiley Canyon. Online records obtained by The Signal from the California Secretary of State’s website show that a Dec. 28 filing on behalf of Wiley Canyon LLC updated a record that hadn’t been current since 2021, moving the entity’s address from a Telfair Avenue address to the Pacific Palisades.
