Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles

• Citation: 223 Cal.Rptr. 18,177 Cal.App.3d 300
• Decision Date: 17 January 1986
• Docket Number: CURREY-RIACH,No. B009200,B009200
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: LAS VIRGENES HOMEOWNERS FEDERATION, INC., a non-profit corporation; and Monte Nido Valley Property Owners Association, a non-profit corporation, Petitioners and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, acting By and Through its BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Regional Planning Commission, and Department of Regional Planning, Respondent.COMPANY, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

Page 18

223 Cal.Rptr. 18

177 Cal.App.3d 300

LAS VIRGENES HOMEOWNERS FEDERATION, INC., a non-profit corporation; and Monte Nido Valley Property Owners Association, a non-profit corporation, Petitioners and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, acting By and Through its BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Regional Planning Commission, and Department of Regional Planning, Respondent CURREY-RIACH COMPANY, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

No. B009200.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

Jan. 17, 1986.

Review Denied May 8, 1986.

Francis and Yardum, and G. Greg Aftergood, Encino, for petitioners and appellants.

DeWitt W. Clinton, County Counsel for the County of Los Angeles, and Helen S. Parker, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for respondent County of Los Angeles.

Ross & Scott, William D. Ross and Diana P. Scott, Los Angeles, for real party in interest and respondent, Currey-Riach Co.

COMPTON, Associate Justice.

This appeal arises out of the challenge by two homeowners associations (Homeowners) to a development project proposed by real party in interest (Developer) and approved by the County of Los Angeles (County).

Homeowners attack the County's approval of the project, contending (1) that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project does not comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub.Res.Code, §§ 21000 et seq.) and State Planning and Zoning Law (Gov.Code, §§ 65000 et seq.); (2) that the approval will result in significant unmitigable adverse effects on the environment and therefore it was a prejudicial abuse of the County's discretion to find that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; (3) that the Scenic Highway Element of the General Plan is void for lack of implementation; (4) that the Malibu-Santa Monica Mountains Area Plan is inconsistent with the County's General Plan, and the project is inconsistent with both; and finally, (5) that the approved densities within the project purportedly authorized by an amendment to the County's General Plan are not in compliance with State Planning and Zoning Law. (Gov.Code, § 65302, subd. (a).)

The project in question is proposed to be developed on 516.2 acres of land, owned by Developer, in the Las Virgenes Valley in the Santa Monica Mountains, an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County. The land is presently rural. It is immediately adjacent to and south of the Ventura Freeway and west of Las Virgenes Road. The land lies within the boundaries of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, and directly borders on Malibu Creek State Park and the Liberty Canyon Natural Preserve. There is existing residential development to the west of the property and considerable projected and existing commercial and industrial development along the Ventura Freeway. Under the proposed project the lots along the freeway would be developed for light industrial commercial use with approximately one million square feet of office space. Immediately adjacent to these lots would be a 15-acre site dedicated for use as a County Civic Center. The central and easterly portions of the land would be developed with 1,192 residential units, except for an 11-acre neighborhood park and 26 acres of creek bed and flood plain of the Las Virgenes Creek, which flows southward to its confluence with Malibu Creek and eventually to the Pacific Ocean. An 8-acre site has also been reserved for an elementary school. The remaining 215 acres of hilly terrain in the western portion of the project would be retained as open space.

Development of the project required approval by the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission of Zone Change No. 81-039, Conditional Use Permit No. 2013 and tentative subdivision tract maps Nos. 32952, 32953, 32954, 32960, 32964, 32988 and 33128. This approval was granted but Homeowners appealed the approval of the Conditional Use Permit No. 2013 to the County Board of Supervisors. Developer appealed the approval of tentative tract maps No. 32952, 32964 and 33128 on technical grounds. The remainder of the tentative tract map approvals was not appealed. (Los Angeles County Code, §§ 22.60.200, 22.60.270, 21.40.160, 21.56.010 B, C.)

Because of the appeals and because Government Code sections 65856 and 65857 require approval of zone changes by the legislative body of the involved local agency, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors held hearings on Zone Change No. 81-039, Conditional Use Permit No. 2013, and tentative subdivision tract maps 32952, 32964, 33128 and approved all of them, adopting the zone change as Ordinance No. 83-0062z and attaching 51 conditions to the Conditional Use Permit. The approval also included certification of the final environmental impact report for the project.

Homeowners petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate and for injunctive and declaratory relief, challenging all seven tentative subdivision tract maps, the Conditional Use Permit No. 2013, the Zone Change Ordinance No. 83-0062z, and the Final Environmental Impact Report. Developer and County responded and moved for denial of the peremptory writ of mandate. Following a hearing the trial court rendered judgment for Developer and County, and issued a 16-page statement of decision. Homeowners have appealed. We affirm.

Judicial review of quasi-legislative actions, such as enactment of zoning ordinances and adoption or amendment of general plans, is normally obtained by petition for a writ of ordinary mandamus pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085; and the scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. (Stauffer Chemical Co. v. Air Resources Board (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 789, 794, 180 Cal.Rptr. 550; Twain Harte Homeowners Assn. v. County of Tuolumne (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 664, 674, 188 Cal.Rptr. 233; Gov.Code, § 65301.5.)

Approvals of the conditional use permit and tentative tract maps were administrative, quasi-judicial acts reviewable pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 which requires a court to determine whether the administrative agency has abused its discretion. Abuse of discretion is established where the agency has not proceeded in the manner required by law, has made a decision unsupported by the findings, or has made findings unsupported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. There is no authorization in a case such as this for the court to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence.

Because Homeowner's appeal is based largely upon their contentions that the EIR for the project is fatally deficient in several respects, we will begin our review there.

Sufficiency of an EIR is independently reviewable pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21168.5. (Karlson v. City of Camarillo (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d 789, 804, 161 Cal.Rptr. 260; Twain Harte Homeowners Assn. v. County of Tuolumne, supra, 138 Cal.App.3d 664, 673, 188 Cal.Rptr. 233; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 189, 139 Cal.Rptr. 396.) This section provides that the inquiry shall extend to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion which is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.

The purpose of an EIR is to inform governmental decision makers and the public of the environmental consequences of a given project so that the political process may be engaged in the analysis and evaluation of the project and a decision may be arrived at intelligently. (Pub.Res.Code, § 21061; Cal.Admin.Code, tit. 14, § 15150; Whitman v. Board of Supervisors (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 397, 405, 151 Cal.Rptr. 866; Twain Harte Homeowners Assn. v. County of Tuolumne, supra, 138 Cal.App.3d at p. 673, 188 Cal.Rptr. 233.) Our purpose in reviewing the present EIR, therefore, is not to pass upon the correctness of its conclusions, but only upon its sufficiency as an informative document. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at p. 189, 139 Cal.Rptr. 396.)

As a means of implementing CEQA, the Legislature ordered the development of guidelines. ¹ (Pub.Res.Code, § 21083; former Cal.Admin.Code, §§ 15000 et seq.) ² These guidelines require that an EIR discuss, among other things, the cumulative effect upon the environment of the subject project in conjunction with other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. (Cal.Admin.Code, tit. 14, §§ 15142, subd. (a), 15143, 15023.5.) The purpose of this requirement is obvious: consideration of the effects of a project or projects as if no others existed would encourage the piecemeal approval of several projects that, taken together, could overwhelm the natural environment and disastrously overburden the man-made infrastructure and vital community services. This would effectively defeat CEQA's mandate to review the actual effect of the projects upon the environment. (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-284, 118 Cal.Rptr. 249, 529 P.2d 1017; Rural Landowners Assn. v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1024, 192 Cal.Rptr. 325.)

According to Homeowners, a table of related projects included in the draft EIR for the subject project fails to disclose the existence of an additional 4537 residential units nearby and 900,000 square feet of contiguous commercial/industrial development. They also contend that the Developer and County never responded to Homeowner's requests that the EIR analyze these and other nearby projects uncovered by Homeowners. (Cal.Admin.Code, tit. 14, § 15146.)

After reviewing the record we are convinced of the correctness of the trial court's finding on this issue. The project EIR amply analyzed the cumulative impacts of adjacent residential, commercial and industrial development upon, among other things,...