Plan for Arcadia, Inc. v. City Council of Arcadia

• Decision Date: 28 October 1974
• Citation: 117 Cal.Rptr. 96,42 Cal.App.3d 712
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PLAN FOR ARCADIA, INC., et al., Plaintiff and Appellants, v. ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL, Defendant and Respondent; and ANITA ASSOCIATES and Santa Anita Consolidated, Inc., Defendants, Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. Civ. 42560.

Page 96

117 Cal.Rptr. 96

42 Cal.App.3d 712

PLAN FOR ARCADIA, INC., et al., Plaintiff and Appellants, v. ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL, Defendant and Respondent and ANITA ASSOCIATES and Santa Anita Consolidated, Inc., Defendants, Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

Civ. 42560.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.

Oct. 28, 1974.

As Modified Nov. 1, 1974.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Nov. 13, 1974.

Hearing Denied Dec. 26, 1974.

John C. McCarthy and Young, Henrie & McCarthy, Pomona, for plaintiffs and appellants.

O'Melveny & Myers, Philip F. Westbrook, Jr., Richard S. Volpert, Thomas H. Childers, Jr., Francis J. Burgweger, Jr., and James W. Colbert, III, Los Angeles, for defendants, real parties in interest and respondents.

No appearance for City of Arcadia City Council, defendant and respondent.

COLE ^*, Associate Justice.

Plan for Arcadia, Inc., and Carl J. Williams (hereinafter 'petitioners') unsuccessfully sought a writ of mandamus directed to the City Council of the City of Arcadia (hereinafter 'City Council'). Anita Associates, a limited partnership, and Santa Anita Consolidated, Inc., a corporation, were named as real parties in interest (hereinafter 'Santa Anita' collectively and 'Anita Associates' or 'Consolidated' when referred to separately). Petitioners appeal.

The questions raised on this appeal involve the Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinafter 'E.Q.A.') Public Resources Code, sections 21,000--21,174. ¹ Specifically, petitioners complain with respect to three projects approved or undertaken by the City Council:

(1) Anita Associates' development of a major regional shopping center (Fashion Park) located on 72 acres of Consolidated's 400 acres of property in Arcadia;

(2) The building of a new parking lot on property owned by Consolidated.

It is contended by petitioners that the City failed to file a proper environmental impact report (hereinafter 'E.I.R.') in connection with these matters.

(3) The widening of the northern portion of Baldwin Avenue, an artery located to the west of the Consolidated property and of Fashion Park.

We hold, in summary, that projects (1) and (2) are not covered by the E.Q.A. and that while project (3) is covered the court's conclusion that there was substantial evidence to support the City Council's determination that the project would have no significant effect on the environment is itself supported.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

An understanding of the issues raised on this appeal requires an examination of the provisions of the E.Q.A. 'As the express legislative intent forthrightly declares, the EQA was designed to be a milestone in the campaign for 'maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this state now and in the future . . .' (§ 21000(a).) . . .' (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal.3d 247, 252, 104 Cal.Rptr. 761, 763, 502 P.2d 1049, 1051). The preamble of the Act '. . . contains a broad expression of legislative policy and recognition that the maintenance of a quality environment, present and prospective, 'is a matter of statewide concern'; that '(i)t is necessary to provide a high-quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing . . .'; that '(t)he capacity of the environment is limited . . .'; and it is the legislative intent and policy to 'take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people . . .,' to 'take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state,' and to '(e)nsure that the long-term protection of the environment shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions.' To that end the Act adopted a comprehensive plan requiring, among other things, that state and local agencies follow a broad program of governmental action designed to assure that in both the planning and construction phases of 'man's activities' primary consideration be given to the effect of such activities on man's environment. In Mammoth these requirements were construed to cover the private sector as well. Among CEQA's requirements are those contained in Public Resources Code section 21151, providing that 'All local agencies shall prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on any project they intend to carry out or approve which may have a significant effect on the environment. . . .' Such a report is required to contain a detailed description of any adverse environmental impact and effect of the proposed action, together with any alternative and minimum options available. (§ 21100.)' (County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, at pp. 802--803, 108 Cal.Rptr. 377 at p. 382.)

Mammoth was decided on September 21, 1972. In response to Mammoth the E.Q.A. was extensively amended by urgency legislation, effective December 5, 1972 (Stats. 1972, ch. 1154).

As amended, the E.Q.A. applies '. . . to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies . . .' (§ 21080(a)). It does not apply to ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies (§ 21080(b)).

Under the terms of the Act 'project' means, insofar as relevant here, '(a) ctivities directly undertaken by any public agency' (§ 21065(a)) and '(A) ctivities involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies' (§ 21065(c)). The latter subdivision makes explicit the holding in Mammoth that the E.Q.A. applies to private projects requiring governmental approval as well as to projects directly undertaken by the agencies themselves.

The 1972 amendments to the E.Q.A. contain a validation provision. Section 21169 states that any private party project (§ 21065(c)) '. . . undertaken, carried out or approved on or before the effective date of (the amendments (December 5, 1972)) and the issuance by any public agency of any lease, permit, license, certificate or other entitlement for use executed or issued on or before (that date) notwithstanding a failure to comply with (the E.Q.A.), if otherwise legal and valid, is hereby confirmed, validated and declared legally effective.'

The 1972 amendments also included a moratorium with respect to private projects. Section 21171 provides that except for section 21169 (validating prior projects) the Act should not apply until the 121st day after the effective date of section 21171 (The 121st day was April 5, 1973). The same section states that it 'shall not prohibit or prevent a public agency, prior to the 121st day . . . from considering environmental factors in connection with the approval or disapproval of a project . . .'

From this brief tour through relevant provisions of the E.Q.A. we turn to a discussion of the facts.

FACTS

(1) Fashion Park: In April, 1970, Consolidated applied for a zoning change on 72 acres of its property in order to construct Fashion Park. Numerous hearings were held by the Arcadia Planning Commission and the City Council. The Council enacted a resolution submitting the zoning change question to the voters of Arcadia. The voters approved the zoning change at the election of April 20, 1971, the change becoming effective May 28, 1971.

In the material submitted to the voters, the zoning change was specifically described as being intended to permit the development of a regional shopping center. The ordinance adopted by the voters contains findings. Among other things, it states that the unique size and location of the property make it suitable for such shopping center and that the public convenience, general welfare and good zoning procedure justify the rezoning. The voteres' 'findings' also describe the location of the property, its relationship to single family residential areas, states that it is well served by major highways and has convenient access to the Foothill Freeway and states that economic surveys show a need for the center.

The ordinance also provides that the development for use of the property should be regulated and controlled by the conditions of City Council resolution No. 4185 and that the resolution should become effective on the effective date of the ordinance. That resolution was included in the voters' pamphlet and set forth twenty-one conditions relating to the construction of the shopping center. ²

Also included in the voters' pamphlet were arguments in favor of and against the ordinance. The argument in favor did not expressly address itself to environmental considerations, as opposed to economic considerations. The argument against claimed that Fashion Park would aggravate the existing air pollution and among other things stated that:

'YOUR VOTE on this matter will determine Arcadia's future. A NO vote will preserve our city as a fine residential community rather than begin a change to a high density urban center of commercial activity.

'A regional shopping center is totally incompatible with racetrack activity. The center's projected traffic of 20,000 cars daily is nearly Twice that which the racetrack experiences on the average racing day. This would aggravate an already hazardous air pollution problem and jeopardize the safety of our children. No traffic plan can adequately permit 20,000 automobiles to enter the shopping center daily during racing season.

'The proposed development, eliminating the training track and 650 horse stalls, would inevitably displace racing in the near future, causing revenue loss to Arcadia.

'Re-development of the entire 400 acres, as shown on the Illustrative Site Plan prepared by the developer's architect, would include high density uses for the balance of the track property, including hotels, high-rise apartments and further commercial developments.'

On November 24, 1970, an opponent of the proposed zoning change submitted to the City Council a Site Plan covering the entire 400 acres occupied by Santa Anita Race Track and...