Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council

Good Law
147 Cal. Rptr. 842·1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1786·83 Cal. App. 3d 515
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 3, 1978Civ. 52606California3,794 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cobey, J.

Petitioners, Laurel Hills Homeowners Association, Briarcliff Improvement Association, Susan Tyler, and Marvin E. Jacobs, appeal from a judgment denying their petition for a writ of mandate that would have required respondents, the City Council of Los Angeles, the city planning commission and the city advisory agency, to vacate their approvals of a subdivision (tentative tract 29033) proposed by the developer, 8941 Mulholland Drive Corporation, and extensively modified by the city as a condition of approval. The city has cross-appealed. Both the appeal and cross-appeal lie. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 904.1, subd. (a), 1094.5, subd. (f).)

Petitioners’ position, as briefed, is that the city’s approval of this subdivision must be set aside because of the city’s failure to comply with certain provisions added to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), which became effective in 1977. These provisions are found in sections 21002 and 21002.1. The fundamental requirement of these added provisions is that of section 21002 that public agencies may not approve proposed projects where there are available feasible mitigation measures or feasible…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.