City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. City Council

• Decision Date: 01 July 1976
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants and Respondents, v. CITY COUNCIL OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES et al., Defendants and Respondents, Palos Verdes Properties, and the May Stores Shopping Centers, Inc., Defendants, Respondents and Appellants. SIERRA CLUB and Robert E. Ryan, Plaintiffs, Appellants and Respondents, v. CITY COUNCIL OF the CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES and City Clerk, Defendants and Respondents; PALOS VERDES PROPERTIES and the May Stores Shopping Centers, Inc., Real Parties In Interest, Respondents and Appellants. Civ. 46813.

Page 173

129 Cal.Rptr. 173

59 Cal.App.3d 869

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants and Respondents, v. CITY COUNCIL OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES et al., Defendants and Respondents, Palos Verdes Properties, and the May Stores Shopping Centers, Inc., Defendants, Respondents and Appellants. SIERRA CLUB and Robert E. Ryan, Plaintiffs, Appellants and Respondents, v. CITY COUNCIL OF the CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES and City Clerk, Defendants and Respondents;

PALOS VERDES PROPERTIES and the May Stores Shopping Centers, Inc., Real Parties In Interest, Respondents and Appellants.

Civ. 46813.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

July 1, 1976.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing July 27, 1976.

Richards, Watson, Dreyfuss & Gershon, and Glenn R. Watson, Los Angeles, for plaintiffs, appellants and respondents City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.

Burke, Williams & Sorensen, and Mark C. Allen, Jr., Los Angeles, for defendants and respondents City Council of Rolling Hills Estates, et al.

Pollock, Williams & Berwanger, John P. Pollock and Charles V. Berwanger, Los Angeles, for defendant, respondent, real party in interest and appellant Palos Verdes Properties.

Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp, and Charles A. Collier, Jr., Los Angeles, for defendant, respondent, real party in interest and appellant The May Stores Shopping Centers, Inc.

David H. Anderson, Los Angeles, for plaintiffs, appellants and respondents Sierra Club and Robert E. Ryan.

THOMPSON, Associate Justice.

The consolidated cases at bench arise out of action by the City Council of Rolling Hills Estates vacating a public street and providing for its future relocation in order to permit development of a 14 1/2 acre shopping center.

Streets and Highways Code section 8323 provides that a city street may be vacated only if after a public hearing on notice 'the city council finds, from all the evidence submitted, that any street or part thereof . . . is unnecessary for present or prospective public street purposes . . ..' Public Resources Code section 21168, part of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), states that a 'decision of a public agency, made as a result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in a public agency (is reviewable) on the grounds of noncompliance with (CEQA) in accordance with the provision of Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.'

Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 113 Cal.Rptr. 836, 522 P.2d 12 requires that an administrative agency rendering a decision reviewable pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 express findings of fact sufficient to reveal relevant sub-conclusions supportive of the ultimate decision, thus enabling a reviewing court to trace and examine the agency's mode of analysis. (11 Cal.3d at pp. 516--517 and fn. 16, 113 Cal.Rptr. 836, 522 P.2d 12.) Absent requisite findings, the administrative decision must be overturned on judicial review.

These consolidated appeals raise the novel issue of the applicability of Topanga's requirement of administrative findings to a proceeding vacating a city street pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 8323 and a city council's consideration of an environmental impact report (EIR) in connection with a section 8323 hearing.

The appeals also concern: (1) the private versus public interest served by the vacation of a city street; (2) the sufficiency of evidence to support the conclusion that a vacated street is not necessary for present or prospective public street purposes; (3) the propriety of action of a city councilman receiving ex parte evidence to aid his decision after the public hearing was closed; (4) the adequacy of an EIR reviewed and considered in conjunction with the vacation of a public street and the response of the vacating city council to significant environmental issues raised by opposition to the project; (5) the sufficiency of evidence to support a city council conclusion that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; (6) the proprierty of a charge of 25 cents per page imposed by a city clerk for copying portions of an EIR at the request of members of the public; and (7) whether the final EIR accepted by a city council was circulated to the public in a timely fashion. A cross-appeal raises the issue of definition of 'relocation' of a city street so as to permit its summary abandonment.

We conclude: (1) Topanga's requirement of administrative findings of fact is applicable to a hearing by a city council conducted pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 8323 and includes findings on subissues involved in the ultimate fact of necessity; (2) the requirement of administrative findings of fact applies only to a limited extent to consideration of an EIR in connection with the hearing; (3) the record fails to establish that the city council erred in concluding that the street is to be vacated for a public purpose; (4) the EIR is legally sufficient; (5) the record does not support the complaint that an excess charge was made for copying the EIR; (6) no prejudice is shown through delay in circulating the accepted final EIR to members of the public; and (7) the trial court correctly concluded that a city street is 'relocated' only when relocation is an established fact. Because the matter at bench must be remanded to the city council for further findings of fact, we do not reach the other issues raised on this appeal. The sufficiency of evidence before the council to support its conclusion of lack of necessity of the street, the significance of the ex parte evidence, and the quantum of evidence supporting the city council's conclusion that the project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment are all questions more appropriately addressed with the aid of the findings required by Topanga.

Project

Rolling Hills Estates (Rolling Hills) and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Palos Verdes) are general law cities. Most of Rolling Hills lies to the east of Palos Verdes. However, the boundaries of Rolling Hills protrude into Palos Verdes in a hatchet-shaped configuration with the hatchet handle flowing westward and the blade to the south. The handle of the hatchet is approximately two blocks in width and four in length. It is zoned for commercial use by Rolling Hills. Deep Valley Drive is a public street which begins near the east end of the hatchet handle and runs westerly for three blocks to Crossfield Drive. It carries a traffic flow of 5,410 automobiles a day, with a peak load of 370 per hour. The first street to the east of Crossfield which crosses Deep Valley Drive is Drybank Drive. The north side of the hatchet handle is Silver Spur Road and the south boundary is Indian Peak Road. Palos Verdes Properties (Properties), a partnership of two private corporations, owns all of the real property in the two blocks separated by Deep Valley Drive and bounded by Silver Spur, Drybank, Indian Peak, and Crossfield. Properties owns the reversion in Deep Valley Drive by reason of the instrument dedicating an easement for highway purposes to Rolling Hills. The two blocks encompass a 14 1/2 acre area.

The May Stores Shopping Centers, Inc. (May) contacted Properties to negotiate for the construction of a shopping center. May's plans call for 300,000 square feet of leasable space plus a parking garage. May contemplates that the center will include two department stores plus a large additional enclosed and air-conditioned shopping mall housing specialty shops.

The shopping center, as planned by Properties and May, cannot be built upon the land owned by Properties because the presence of Deep Valley Drive bisecting the area is incompatible with the plan. Properties filed a request with the city manager of Rolling Hills asking that Deep Valley Drive be vacated between Crossfield and Drybank to facilitate the construction of the proposed shopping center. A draft EIR was prepared by Properties to be used in connection with proceedings to vacate the street. Copies of the report were available to the public at a cost of 25 cents per page.

Substantial opposition to the plan developed. Owners of property abutting Deep Valley Drive protested, as did a Rolling Hills property owner who declared that the street was necessary for access to his business. The Palos Verdes Library District, which owns library property on Deep Valley Drive in the block immediately east of Drybank, similarly protested that vacation of the street would impair access to the library. Palos Verdes property owners opposed the project. Opposition on environmental grounds was expressed by the City of Palos Verdes, the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, and various individuals.

On September 12, 1973, the city council of Rolling Hills adopted a resolution expressing its intention to vacate the portion of Deep Valley Drive between Drybank and Crossfield. Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 8323, public hearings on the resolution were held on January 23 and February 13, 1974. A final EIR was prepared and made available for public inspection or copying at 25 cents per page. Statements supported the vacation of Deep Valley Drive and its realignment as a street curving in an arc 90 degrees southward from Drybank to a point about 75 feet north of the northerly line of Indian Peak and then turning 90 degrees to the west so as to parallel Indian Peak, then curving slightly northward to intersect Crossfield about 100 feet north of Indian Peak. The vacation and realignment is illustrated by the diagrams which follow.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

The statements asserted that the realignment will reduce traffic speed on...