Concerned Citizens of South Central L.A. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.

• Decision Date: 28 April 1994
• Docket Number: No. B075740,B075740
• Citation: 24 Cal.App.4th 826,29 Cal.Rptr.2d 492
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 90 Ed. Law Rep. 309 CONCERNED CITIZENS OF SOUTH CENTRAL LOS ANGELES, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Page 492

29 Cal.Rptr.2d 492

24 Cal.App.4th 826, 90 Ed. Law Rep. 309

CONCERNED CITIZENS OF SOUTH CENTRAL LOS ANGELES, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. B075740.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California.

April 28, 1994.

Mary M. Lee and Paul E. Lee, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, and Richard A. Rothschild, Western Center on Law & Poverty, Los Angeles, for plaintiffs and appellants.

O'Melveny & Myers, James W. Colbert, III, and Edward J. Szczepkowski, Los Angeles, for defendants and respondents.

LILLIE, Presiding Justice.

Plaintiffs Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles and Equal Rights Congress of Los Angeles, unincorporated associations, and Gwendolyn Cannon appeal from an order denying their petition for writ of mandate. ¹ In their petition, plaintiffs sought

to compel defendants Los Angeles Unified School District (District) and Board of Education of the City of Los [24 Cal.App.4th 832] Angeles (Board) to set aside the certification of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the planned construction of an elementary school, "Jefferson 3," at a site in a low income minority neighborhood in South Central Los Angeles, and requiring the elimination of 67 units of affordable housing and the displacement of 280 people; plaintiffs also challenged the Board's approval of the Jefferson 3 project.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

As most of the factual and procedural background of this case was admitted in respondents' answer to the first amended petition for writ of mandate, we obtain the following facts from those admitted portions, as well as from the administrative record.

The community of South Central Los Angeles is a primarily minority, low income community of about 200,000 residents, located about 1.5 miles south of downtown Los Angeles. The focus of this action is the proposed site for the "Jefferson 3" elementary school, lying within the Jefferson High School Complex Attendance Area (Jefferson attendance area).

In 1986, defendant Board, the governing and policy making entity for the District, determined that the existing overcrowded conditions and projected enrollment within the Jefferson attendance area necessitated construction of four new elementary schools, the expansion of an existing elementary school, and construction of a new junior high school and a new senior high school. One of the four proposed new elementary schools is the Jefferson 3 school.

In November and December 1987, the Board conducted public meetings to solicit community input regarding potential sites for the proposed Jefferson attendance area school construction program. Community residents, including plaintiffs, participated in the meetings; plaintiffs, although favoring additional school construction, opposed the construction or expansion of additional school facilities on sites requiring residential displacement and destruction of existing housing. In March 1988, the Board approved the intensive study of eight sites for school construction and ordered the preparation of a draft environmental impact report (EIR) for each site. The Board proposed that the Jefferson 3 school be located on a 4.6 acre rectangular site, bounded by Broadway, Main Street, 47th Street and 47th Place, and which contained 67 dwelling units, three businesses and 28 swap meet vendors.

In November 1988, the Board certified a final EIR for the proposed Jefferson 3 project. In December 1988, plaintiffs filed this proceeding challenging the approval of the Jefferson 3 project. On August 3, 1989, a Stipulation and Order was entered wherein defendants District and Board agreed to prepare an SEIR for the Jefferson 3 project. In February 1992, the SEIR was completed, and, on June 25, 1992, over the continuing objection of plaintiffs, the Board certified the SEIR and once again approved the Jefferson 3 project. The SEIR described the proposed school as a two-story structure with 30 classrooms, administrative offices, library, and subsidiary facilities.

In connection with its approval of the project, the Board adopted a Statement of Facts and Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Board found that the project would cause "a significant loss of affordable housing in the local area. This also includes a significant cumulative loss of affordable housing in South Central Los Angeles, as caused by this and other projects in the region." The Board also found that "specific economic, social, and other considerations make further reduction of these impacts or adoption of alternatives avoiding these impacts infeasible." The Board's The Board also concluded that "to the extent that any impacts attributable to the project remain unmitigated, such impacts are acceptable in light of the overriding social, economic and other benefits set forth here, in the EIR and in the Administrative Record. The LAUSD Board finds that the alternatives set forth in the EIR are infeasible and less desirable than the project itself. The LAUSD Board finds that the project's benefits outweigh the unmitigated impacts and justify approval of the project."

Statement of Overriding Considerations stated that "The proposed project is in response to the need for educational facilities in an area of the School District that is experiencing overcrowded school facilities and high enrollment. This need is documented in the Administrative Record. The LAUSD finds that a new elementary school is needed to avoid overcrowding [24 Cal.App.4th 834] at other elementary schools in the area and provide a healthy atmosphere of public education. [p] ... There are already approximately 3,350 students being transported out of the Jefferson attendance area to other attendance areas of LAUSD where space is available. The new school would reduce the number of students requiring bus transportation due to overcrowded conditions in the schools nearest their homes."

In July 1992, plaintiffs filed a first amended petition for writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief. This appeal concerns only the first two causes of action of the petition. In the first cause of action, plaintiffs alleged that the EIR and/or SEIR are legally inadequate under CEQA because they (1) fail to address the potential adverse impacts and cumulative impacts of the project on affordable housing in South Central Los Angeles, (2) do not adequately address all reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, (3) fail to address or disclose the adverse impacts of the project on traffic hazards and circulation in the area, (4) ignore the "growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project," (5) fail to address the potential cumulative impacts of the project and the other projects in the Jefferson attendance area on the supply of affordable housing in the area, (6) fail to disclose the significant adverse economic and social impacts associated with the project, (7) fail to address the issue of the inconsistency of the proposed project with the provisions of the General Plan for the City of Los Angeles dealing with the preservation of stable neighborhoods and affordable housing, and (8) do not adequately respond to public comments and questions.

In the second cause of action, plaintiffs alleged that defendants failed to make adequate written findings under Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15088 and 15089 (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15088 and 15089; hereinafter referred to as Guidelines) pertaining to mitigation measures and the economic and social considerations affecting mitigation measures. Plaintiffs also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the findings "regarding the absence of significant adverse environmental impacts or feasible alternatives, the feasibility of the project, and the presence of benefits that override any adverse impacts."

Both sides filed memoranda of points and authorities on the foregoing issues; after hearing on February 10, 1993, the matter was submitted. On March 2, 1993, the court issued a ruling denying the petition for writ of mandate as to the first and second causes of action. The ruling stated that "Under the substantial evidence and prejudicial abuse of discretion tests set forth in Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278, moving parties have failed to demonstrate, in light of the entire record, responding party's decision is not supported by substantial evidence." The court also specifically concluded that moving parties failed to present sufficient evidence that the EIR was inadequate, that the SEIR adequately considered the socio-economic effect of residential displacement, that there was an adequate discussion of alternative plans under Public Resources Code section 21061, and that the findings regarding mitigation measures adequately deal with the loss of housing.

Plaintiffs filed timely notice of appeal from the order denying the petition for writ of

mandate as to the first and second causes of action. On appeal, appellants claim the SEIR is legally inadequate under CEQA with respect to the issues of the cumulative impact of the project, mitigation of housing loss, and a study of alternative sites for the Jefferson 3 school. Appellants also claim that respondents abused their discretion in (1) refusing to respond to the suggestion by the author of the SEIR to reopen the site selection process in the wake of the 1992 civil disturbances in which many stores and businesses had been burned, creating new vacant sites in the area, and (2) in failing to adequately explain the finding that mitigation is infeasible.

I ADEQUACY OF SEIR

"The standard of review of whether an agency has complied with CEQA requirements governing consideration of alternatives and mitigation measures in adopting an EIR is...