Gooden v. The Cnty. of L. A.

1

JOHN M. GOODEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

B326446

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division

October 24, 2024

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION ^[*]

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 21STCP01784 Kevin Brazile, Judge. Affirmed.

Robert S. Gerstein for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Office of the County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel Starr Coleman, Assistant County Counsel, Kathy H. Park Deputy County Counsel; The Sohagi Law Group, Margaret M Sohagi, R. Tyson Sohagi, and Mark J.G. Desrosiers for Defendants and Respondents.

HOFFSTADT, J.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.),^[1] a public agency must prepare an environmental impact report if any project it is contemplating-which can include amendments to a local government's general plan for land use-"may have a significant effect on the environment." (§§ 21100, subd. (a), 21151, subd. (a); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064, subd. (a)(1).) The primary purpose of this report is informational-that is, "to give the public and government agencies [contemplating the project] the information needed to make informed decisions." (In re BayDelta etc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1162 (Bay-Delta).) But what if the public agency, prior to certifying the environmental impact report, ultimately takes action in a manner that deviates from the project described in that report? Does that deviation undermine the informational value of the previously circulated report and, if so, what remedy does CEQA demand? We hold that CEQA contemplates three possible outcomes in this scenario. If the deviation alters the very "nature of the project" and its "main features," the deviation retrospectively renders inaccurate and unstable the definition of the project previously set forth in the report, thereby necessitating a new report to evaluate what is effectively a new project. If the deviation is less extreme, but increases the project's adverse environmental impact by adding "significant new information" for consideration, the public agency must recirculate for further public comment an amended version of the pertinent portions of the previously circulated report. And if the deviation does not trigger either of these duties, no further action is required.

In this case, a county circulated an amended land use plan for an unincorporated mountainous region that contemplated continued heavy regulation of vineyards in that region, but the county board ultimately imposed a ban on new vineyards. We conclude that this deviation did not alter the very nature of the plan amendment or its main features, and that the vintner challenging the county board's action waived any request for recirculation. We accordingly affirm the trial court's denial of the vintner's petition for a writ of administrative mandamus.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Facts

A. The Santa Monica Mountains North Area

The Santa Monica Mountains North Area is an approximately 21,000-acre area of land in an unincorporated portion of northwestern Los Angeles County in the Santa Monica Mountains-one of the County's "most significant ecological and scenic resources."

The County regulates land use in the North Area pursuant to (1) the North Area Plan, which was first adopted in October 2000 as a part of the County's General Plan and serves as a "planning tool" with "area-specific policies," and (2) the Community Standards District, which was first adopted in October 2002 and serves as a "zoning overlay" within the County Code to implement the policies of the North Area Plan.

B. Land uses within the North Area, including vineyards

The North Area enjoys a "long history as a rural setting." Most of the North Area-16,514 acres-constitutes open space, while 4,170 acres are designated for commercial, public, and residential uses. Only around 100 acres are used for agriculture, which predominantly consists of vineyards along Mulholland Highway and Kanan Dume Road, as well as in Triunfo Canyon.

The North Area's southern boundary stops five miles from the coast because the California Coastal Commission regulates the land within five miles of the coastline. In October 2014, the California Coastal Commission certified a Local Coastal Program-which consists of land use plans and zoning ordinances-for the five miles of land adjacent to the North Area.^[2] Among other things, the Local Coastal Program prohibited any new vineyards within its boundaries; according to the staff report submitted in support of the ban, this ban was necessary due to the "adverse impacts attributed" to the operation of vineyards, "including increased erosion from removal of all vegetation, use of pesticides, large amounts of water required, their invasive nature, and their adverse impact to scenic views."

Shortly thereafter, in December 2015, the County's Board of Supervisors (the Board) adopted an ordinance specifically regulating vineyards in the North Area. The 2015 ordinance obligated anyone seeking to open a new vineyard or to expand an existing vineyard to obtain a conditional use permit; it also established development standards for all vineyards-existing or new-to address the potential environmental impacts caused by the "proliferation of vineyards" in the North Area.

C. The project

In April 2016, the Board voted to undertake a "comprehensive update" to the North Area Plan and to the Community Standards District. This update implicated CEQA. The Board described the "project" to be undertaken as an update "to provide greater protection of biological habitats, align Plan and [Community Standards District] policies and standards with the [Local Coastal Program], support the rural and semi-rural character of the [North Area], and bring the land use policies for the North Area into compliance with the General Plan." The update would result in a corresponding "replace[ment]" to pertinent zoning provisions in the County Code and a rezoning of hundreds of parcels. In other words, the project did "not include any physical development"-instead, it "identifi[ed] land use policies and development standards" for the North Area.

1. Draft environmental impact report

The County issued a draft environmental impact report for the project in May 2020. The draft report identified several key revisions to the North Area Plan and the Community Standards District, including:

• Adopting various development standards to protect sensitive biological resources, habitats, and scenic attributes;

• Imposing new permit requirements when protected trees are affected by development;

• Setting standards for equestrian facilities;

• Limiting the use of event facilities;

• Establishing noise levels; and

• Imposing new permit requirements for grading projects.

As for viticulture, the draft proposed reducing the minimum threshold for when the growth of grapes would be considered a "vineyard" subject to the more stringent development standards in the 2015 ordinance; the draft also added standards for integrated pest management. There was no proposed ban on new vineyards.

The County received almost 100 comments to the draft report, with several voicing "support" of a "complete" "ban" on vineyards "in the same fashion as in the Local Coastal Program."

2. Final environmental impact report

The final environmental impact report was issued in September 2020 with some changes. The final report did not propose a vineyard ban; instead, the County responded to the comments urging a ban by explaining that the existing regulations governing "development standards" for vineyards sufficed to "ensure that environmental impacts are minimized."

Following a hearing on October 7, 2020, the County's Department of Regional Planning recommended that, with a few minor modifications, the Board certify the final environment impact report, approve the updates to the North Area Plan and Community Standards District, and adopt an ordinance amending the pertinent provisions of the County Code.

3. Certification

The Board convened a public meeting on November 4, 2020 to consider the recommendation. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Board "indicate[d] its intent to certify" the final report, approve the updated plan, and amend the County Code. But the Board made one change pertinent to this appeal:^[3]"[P]rohibit new vineyards of any size."

After soliciting and receiving written comments regarding the proposed ban on new vineyards, the Board held another public meeting on May 4, 2021 and voted unanimously to certify the report, approve the updated North Area Plan and Community Standards District, and adopt the ordinance amending the pertinent provisions of the County Code. The vineyard ban is reflected in section 22.336.070, subdivision (Y)(1)(a) of the County Code and states: "All new vineyards, regardless of size, shall be prohibited in this [Community Standards District]."

II. Procedural Background

The Malibu Coast Vintners and Grape Growers Alliance, Inc. (the Alliance) and one of its members, a vintner named John Gooden (Gooden), filed a petition for a writ of mandate on June 2 2021. The Alliance and Gooden had submitted comments during the CEQA proceedings opposing a vineyard ban. The writ petition challenged the Board's action banning all new vineyards in the North Area Plan as violating (1) CEQA's requirements that (a) the project have an accurate and stable description and (b) the report be recirculated when significant new information is added; and (2) Government Code section 65857's requirement that the Board remand the new ban proposal for consideration by the Department for...