Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 21STCV00223, Date: 2023-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: April 3, 2023

Case Name: California Commercial Investment Group, Inc. v. City of Agoura Hills, et 

al.

Case No.: 21STCP03485

Matter: Petition for Writ of Mandate

Moving Party: California Commercial Investment Group, Inc.

Responding Party: City of Agoura Hills

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Petition for Writ of Mandate is denied.

Petitioner to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On July 7, 2022, California Commercial Investment Group, Inc. (“CCI”) filed a verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Second Amended Complaint against the City of Agoura Hills (“City”) for declaratory relief and injunctive relief.  CCI alleges that “[s]ince 2015, CCI has been trying to get a permit to develop a bare 18-acre lot on the southeast corner of Kanan and Agoura Roads: CCI’s proposed Agoura Village East (‘AVE’) Housing and Commercial Mixed Use Development Project (the ‘Project’). The AVE would have commercial and residential buildings where people can live, shop, work and eat. It would provide housing, jobs, a forum for businesses, support for the local community and tax revenue for the City. The City deemed CCI’s application complete in October 2018 and the CEQA draft environmental impact report (‘EIR’) was close to being final. There was no legitimate reason to block the Project. But that is exactly what the City did. In May 2021, just weeks after acknowledging that CCI had submitted all the requisite materials for the EIR, the City refused to complete the EIR and vetoed the Project. The City further denied CCI access to the draft EIR, into which CCI had invested countless hours and effort and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct costs.  The City hung its pretextual refusal to allow the Project to proceed on CEQA, invoking a provision that excuses a public agency from completing an EIR for projects that the City elects to reject or disapprove when the CEQA process is in its infancy – not after seven years, see Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(5), on a series of shifting interpretations, overblown inconsistencies with the Agoura Village Specific Plan (‘AVSP’ or ‘Specific Plan’) and on plainly erroneous information.  CCI suspects the City’s real motivation was to clear the Project site of any pending applications, so that it can continue to target the Project site for a large share of the City’s affordable housing needs in its Housing Element while maintaining its de facto development moratorium. The denial of the Project was thus a calculated, strategic attempt by the City to continue to rely upon the site to satisfy its legal affordable housing needs, while, in reality, ensuring that nothing is ever actually built.”

CCI primarily contends that the City levied three baseless objections to halt the subject project, which had already been deemed complete.  These objections related to building height, mixed-use dwelling units, and setbacks.  CCI contends that the City should have taken its time to reach a natural conclusion to the subject project, rather than rushing to a denial so as to serve its own purposes of obtaining affordable housing—an issue that the City has purportedly struggled with.  CCI emphasizes that the City should have been flexible according to its own standards.  

“[A] court may issue a writ when a public agency has abused its discretion in carrying out a discretionary function. ‘Although traditional mandamus will not lie to compel the exercise of discretion in a particular manner, it is a proper remedy to challenge agency discretionary action as an abuse of discretion.’ (Asimow et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Administrative Law (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶ 13.90.) ‘That mandate will lie whenever an administrative board has abused its discretion is a rule so well established as to be beyond question.’ (Manjares v. Newton (1966) 64 Cal.2d 365, 370, 49 Cal.Rptr. 805, 411 P.2d 901; see also Common Cause, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 442, 261 Cal.Rptr. 574, 777 P.2d 610 [‘mandamus will lie to correct an abuse of discretion by an official acting in an administrative capacity’].) ‘Mandamus may ... issue to correct the exercise of discretionary legislative power, but only where the action amounts to an abuse of discretion as a matter of law because it is so palpably unreasonable and arbitrary.’ (Ellena v. Dept. of Ins. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 198, 206, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 435 (Ellena).) ‘When a court reviews a public entit[y's] decision for an abuse of discretion, the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the public entity, and if reasonable minds may disagree as to the wisdom of the public entity's discretionary determination, that decision must be upheld. [Citation.] Thus, the judicial inquiry ... addresses whether the public entity's action was arbitrary, capricious or entirely without evidentiary support, and whether it failed to conform to procedures required by law.’ (California Public Records Research, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1432, 1443, 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 745 (California Public Records Research).) ‘Where only one choice can be a reasonable exercise of discretion, a court may compel an official to make that choice.’ (California Correctional Supervisors Organization, Inc. v. Department of Corrections (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 824, 827, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 595 (California Correctional Supervisors).) ‘Deferential review of quasi-legislative activity minimizes judicial interference in the interests of the separation of powers doctrine.’ (County of Los Angeles, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 654, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 263.)”  (CV Amalgamated LLC v. City of Chula Vista (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 265, 279–80.)  

The Court cannot find that the City abused its discretion.  As to the aforementioned objections: six of the 15 proposed buildings exceeded the maximum height allowed (AR 6071-6072); multiple buildings did not comply with minimum setbacks, maximum setbacks, or both, for a total of 17 instances where setbacks were not met (AR 6071-6072); and the project exceeded the maximum number of dwelling units in a mixed-use building, even accounting for density bonuses, proposing 42 units when the maximum allowed is 37 (AR 6072- 6073).  The City told CCI that its Project setbacks were inconsistent with the AVSP, including four and a half years before the Project was denied (AR 5865; 5917; 5930; 7396-7402; AR 7431); told CCI at least three times how building heights were required to be measured under the AVSP and that some Project buildings were too tall (AR 5943; AR 6031; AR 6031); and that CCI conceded during the Planning Commission hearing that it bore responsibility for not ensuring its Project met AVSP requirements for mixed use residential units. (AR 5303-5304.)  CCI has failed to show that the City violated the Subdivision Map Act by applying new standards after the project was deemed complete.  Even if the improprieties were not known long ago, it cannot be proper for the City to have moved forward with a noncompliant project.

Further, CCI’s theory about the City’s sinister plan to deny CCI’s project to obtain more affordable housing is speculative and not apparent from the evidence.  To the contrary, it seems CCI’s property was not even required for the City to ultimately meet its obligations.  While CCI’s site was identified as having the capacity to accommodate 40 lower-income units (SUPP 9047), even if that entire allotment was removed for any reason, the City still had identified sites to support 90 units more than required.  (SUPP 8923.)  

As to the Housing Crisis Act, contrary to CCI’s contention that there was essentially a development moratorium, the City approved the last project in the AVSP area that came before it, the Cornerstone project; however, those entitlements were set aside following a lawsuit.  The trial court found that the City had failed to ensure compliance with a numeric standard in the City’s Oak Tree Ordinance.  But now, CCI wants the City to have shoe-horned another faulty project.  

Further, with the project having been rejected, there is no apparent impropriety relating to CEQA.  (See Las Lomas Land Co., LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 837, 849.)

For the same reasons stated above, CCI has failed to show that it was deprived of a fair hearing.  

CCI wants its investment to pay off, but investments are not a guarantee.  “Sometimes when you gamble, you lose.”  (Huffington v. T.C. Grp., LLC Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 18, 2012) 2012 WL 1415930.)  

In sum, the Petition for Writ of Mandate is denied.

Petitioner to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.