Land Use Preservation Def. Fund v. County of LA
Plaintiffs Use Preservation Defense Fund and Anne Hoffman (collectively Land Use) sued Los Angeles County (County) and its Board of Supervisors (Board) seeking a writ of mandate preventing the County from enforcing a recently enacted zoning ordinance that restricted development in the Santa Monica Mountains by imposing limitations on grading and development on significant ridgelines. Land Use alleged the new zoning ordinance was void because it was inconsistent with the Countys applicable general plan based on a Grandfather Clause in the plan that states, Existing legal lots are not affected and may be developedfollowing current development requirementsregardless of lot size. Land Use also contended that the ordinance was void because the County had failed to prepare a supplemental environmental impact report (Supplemental Report) prior to enacting the ordinance, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Land Use renews on appeal both of the arguments it made in the trial court concerning the ordinances alleged inconsistency with the general plan and the Countys failure to prepare a Supplemental Report. After reviewing the relevant portions of the administrative record, we hold that (1) the Countys consistency determination was not arbitrary or capricious and that the Grandfather Clause cannot reasonably be interpreted to foreclose the applicability of future zoning regulations, and (2) substantial evidence supported the Countys determination that a Supplemental Report was not required under CEQA. Court therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Comments on Land Use Preservation Def. Fund v. County of LA