Overdevelopment v. City of L. A., B285458

• Decision Date: 01 October 2018
• Docket Number: B285458
• Citation: 27 Cal.App.5th 1079,238 Cal.Rptr.3d 712
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: WESTSIDERS OPPOSED TO OVERDEVELOPMENT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents; Philena Properties, L.P., et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

27 Cal.App.5th 1079

238 Cal.Rptr.3d 712

WESTSIDERS OPPOSED TO OVERDEVELOPMENT, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents;

Philena Properties, L.P., et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

B285458

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8, California.

Filed October 1, 2018

Venskus & Associates, Sabrina Venskus, Ojai, and Elise Cossart-Daly, El Segundo, for Petitioner and Appellant.

Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Terry Kaufmann-Macias, Assistant City Attorney, John Fox, Fresno, and Leonard P. Aslanian, Deputy City Attorneys, Pasadena; Remy Moose Manley, LLP, Sabrina Teller and Nathan George, Sacramento, for Respondents.

Alston & Bird, Edward I. Casey, Andrea S. Warran and Max Rollens, Los Angeles, for Real Parties in Interest.

RUBIN, J.

Appellant Westsiders Opposed to Overdevelopment (Westsiders) appeals the trial court's denial of its petition for writ of mandate seeking to invalidate an amendment to the City of Los Angeles General Plan (General Plan). The City of Los Angeles (City) had amended the General Plan to change the land use designation of a five-acre development site from light industrial to general commercial. The project at issue involves a mixed-use development close to a new light rail station.

Westsiders challenges the denial of its writ petition contending: (1) the City Charter (Charter) bars the amendment of the General Plan for a single project site; (2) the Charter also bars the City from allowing a member of the public to initiate an amendment; (3) the City failed to make required findings when it amended the General Plan; and (4) the amendment constituted impermissible spot zoning. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Project

In August 2013, Dana Martin, Jr., Philena Properties, L.P. and Philena Property Management, LLC (collectively, Philena) filed a land use permit application with the City. The project at issue involved the demolition of an automobile dealership located at the intersection of South Bundy Drive and West Olympic Boulevard, and the construction of 516 residential units, 99,000 square feet of retail floor area, and 200,000 square feet of office floor area.

That same month the City Director of Planning signed a form "initiat[ing] the plan amendment(s) as requested" by Philena. Project approval required an environmental impact report, an amendment to the General Plan changing the land use designation of the project site from light industrial to general commercial, a zoning change, several conditional use permits, and a development agreement between the City and Philena.

The City's environmental impact report concluded that the project was "consistent with applicable land use policies" adopted by the planning organization for Southern California. Those policies emphasized "focusing growth in existing and emerging centers and along major transportation corridors, creating significant areas of mixed-use development and walkable communities, targeting growth around existing and planned transit stations, and preserving existing open space and stable residential area."

In December 2015, the City issued its final environmental impact report. The following spring, the City's Advisory Agency certified the environmental impact report. In June 2016, the City Planning Commission approved the requested land use entitlements, and recommended that the City adopt an ordinance authorizing the development agreement between the City and Philena. In September 2016, the City Council approved the General Plan amendment and the project.

2. The Petition for Writ of Mandate

The following month, in October 2016, Westsiders filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the General Plan amendment.

Westsiders challenged the amendment under City Charter section 555 subdivisions (a) and (b) (Sections 555(a) and 555(b) ).¹ Section 555(a) provides, among other things, that the City may amend the General Plan "by geographic area" when the "area involved has significant social, economic or physical identity." Section 555(b) provides that amendments may be initiated by the council, the City Planning Commission or the director of planning.

Westsiders argued that the General Plan could not be amended for a "single project or single parcel" because such a small piece of land could not qualify as a "geographic area" with "significant social, economic or physical identity" as required by Section 555(a). Westsiders also argued that the City had effectively allowed Philena to "initiate" the amendment in violation of Section 555(b).²

Following a hearing on the merits, the trial court denied the petition on the following grounds: "1. The City did not exceed its authority under L.A. Charter § 555 or abuse its discretion in approving the General Plan Amendment for the project at issue in this matter ("Project"). [¶] 2. The City did not exceed its authority under L.A. Charter Section 555 or abuse its discretion in the initiation of the General Plan amendment for the Project."

The court also denied Westsiders's request for judicial notice of two items of purported legislative history of Section 555(a): (1) a 1969 sample ballot and voter's pamphlet "showing proposed amendments to an earlier provision in the City Charter," and (2) "a portion of a Los Angeles City Council official action referring four motions and a proposal of the Building Industry Association to the City Planning Commission for recommendation on a proposed ordinance to halt the issuance of building permits." The trial court concluded that the "interpretation of City Charter section 555(a) does not require [a] review of legislative history," and the subject exhibits "refer to earlier provisions in the City Charter rather than to section 555(a)."

Judgment was entered on August 7, 2017, and Westsiders timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

1. Applicable Law

a. Writ of Mandate

12 Westsiders's appeal challenges the City's amendment of the General Plan. The "adoption of any amendment to [a general] plan or any part or element thereof is a legislative act which shall be reviewable pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure." (Gov. Code, § 65301.5.) "A traditional writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 is a method for compelling a public entity to perform a legal and usually ministerial duty." (Klajic v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 987, 995, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 454, fn. omitted.) By contrast, "the purpose of an administrative mandamus proceeding, under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1094.5, is to review the final adjudicative action of an administrative body." (Vernon Fire Fighters v. City of Vernon (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 802, 808, 165 Cal.Rptr. 908.)

3 Westsiders contends that its challenge should be reviewed under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, because the City's amendment applied only to Philena's property and not to the "entire community." In support of this argument, Westsiders cites to several cases that predate the enactment of Government Code section 65301.5 ; Westsiders does not address how those cases can be squared with the more recent statute. (See, e.g., Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 156 Cal.Rptr. 718, 596 P.2d 1134 ; Mountain Defense League v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 723, 135 Cal.Rptr. 588 ; Patterson v. Central Coast Regional Com. (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 833, 130 Cal.Rptr. 169.) We agree with respondent that, under Government Code section 65301.5, a general plan amendment is reviewable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, as a legislative act.

b. General Plan

45"The Legislature has required every county and city to adopt ‘a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city. ...’ [Citation.] A general plan provides a ‘ "charter for future development" ’ and sets forth a city or county's fundamental policy decisions about such development." (Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 815, 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 251.)

6789 The general plan consists of a " ‘ "statement of development policies ... setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals." ’ " ( Fonseca v. City of Gilroy (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 374.) " ‘The adoption or amendment of a general plan is a legislative act. (Gov. Code, § 65301.5.) A legislative act is presumed valid, and a city need not make explicit findings to support its action. [Citations.] A court cannot inquire into the wisdom of a legislative act or review the merits of a local government's policy decisions. [Citation.] Judicial review of a legislative act under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 [writ of mandate] is limited to determining whether the public agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, entirely without evidentiary support, or procedurally unfair. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]" (San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 498, 509, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 430 (San Francisco ).)

c. City Charter

101112"A ‘charter city may not act in conflict with its charter’ [citation] and ‘[a]ny act that is violative of or not in compliance with the charter is void.’ " (Don't Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 338, 349, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 294 (Cell ).) "A City Charter operates as a limitation or restriction over all the municipal affairs which the City is assumed to possess; it is not a grant of power, and the enumeration of powers therein does not constitute an exclusion or limitation on the City's authority. Restrictions on the City's powers may not be implied; unless the Charter expressly prohibits it from exercising its authority in a manner not otherwise limited by state or federal law, the City retains the power to do so." (Social Services Union v. City and County of San Francisco (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1093, 1101, 285 Cal.Rptr. 905 (Social Services ).)

13141516"The principles of construction that apply to statutes also apply to the...