Young America’s Foundation v. County of Santa Barbara
Case No: 16CV05561
Hearing Date: Tue May 22, 2018 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Writ of Mandate

Petition for Writ of Mandate

ATTORNEYS:

Randall Fox for Petitioner Young America’s Foundation

Paul Lee, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent County of Santa Barbara

RULING:

The petition for writ of mandate of Young America’s Foundation is denied without prejudice as set forth herein.

BACKGROUND:

Petitioner Young America’s Foundation is a nonprofit corporation and the owner of Rancho Del Cielo, the former home and retreat of President Ronald Reagan (the “Reagan Ranch”), located in the Santa Ynez Mountains north of Santa Barbara. The Reagan Ranch consists of 688 acres and includes an adobe residence and related structures. The Reagans purchased the ranch in 1974, shortly before Ronald Reagan completed his second term as governor of California. Numerous artifacts of the Reagan governorship and presidency are located throughout the ranch property. During his time as president, Ronald Reagan hosted foreign dignitaries at the ranch and performed many other presidential functions there. Ronald Reagan regarded the ranch as a “working ranch” and used it as an escape from his very public life in Washington, D.C. In 1998, Young America’s Foundation purchased the Reagan Ranch with the goal of preserving it in exactly the same condition it was when Ronald Reagan walked out the front door for the last time, including the books on the shelves, the tools in the tool shed, and the saddles in the tack room. Like the homes and properties of other former presidents, the Reagan Ranch is an important historical resource that offers a unique insight into the life of Governor and later President Ronald Reagan.

In November 2016, respondent County of Santa Barbara, acting through its Board of Supervisors, on a 3/2 vote, adopted the Gaviota Coast Plan (“GCP”). The GCP designates and regulates land uses along the Gaviota Coast and affects approximately 158 square miles (101,199 acres) of rural southern Santa Barbara County, including the Reagan Ranch. The plan area stretches from Vandenberg Air Force Base on the west to the Bacara Resort and Spa on the east. The northern boundary of the GCP is the ridgeline of the Santa Ynez Mountains and the southern boundary is the Pacific Ocean. The Gaviota Tunnel on Highway 101 is approximately the center point of the GCP area. Among other things, the GCP identifies and maps hiking, equestrian, and recreational trails, both existing and proposed, within the plan area. One of the trails identified in the GCP is the West Camino Cielo Crest Trail (the “WCCC Trail”), a proposed east/west trail that roughly follows the ridgeline of the Santa Ynez Mountains, from north of El Capitan State Park on the east to Gaviota State Park on the west. As mapped, the portion of the WCCC Trail west of Refugio Road traverses the southern portion of the Reagan Ranch for approximately 1.5 miles. Petitioner contends that siting a public trail directly through the Reagan Ranch will result in unsupervised access to the historical property, exposing it to possible vandalism, theft, or other damage.

On December 8, 2016, Young America’s Foundation filed its petition for writ of mandate, challenging the GCP on the ground that the siting of trails in the plan area, particularly the WCCC Trail, was completed without adequate analysis of the significant, adverse impacts the trails will have on historical resources, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Petitioner requests that the Court issue a peremptory writ of mandate, directing County to vacate its approval of the GCP and to prepare and circulate a new environmental impact report that includes a site-specific review of the impacts of all proposed trails in the plan area, and, where significant, adverse impacts are found to exist, an analysis of alternatives or specific mitigation measures that would prevent or limit the environmental impacts of the trails. Alternatively, petitioner requests that the Court modify the GCP by changing the proposed trail designations and maps in a manner that comports with the law and protects the Reagan Ranch.

Analysis:

The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and is intended to implement a statewide policy of environmental protection. California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1225 (the legislature intended CEQA to be interpreted to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language). The basic purposes of CEQA are to (1) inform the government and public about a proposed activity’s potential environmental impacts, (2) identify ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage, (3) prevent environmental damage by requiring changes in the project through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when feasible, and (4) disclose to the public the rationale for governmental approval of a project that may significantly impact the environment. Residents Against Specific Plan 380 v. County of Riverside (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 941, 959. The guidelines for implementing the CEQA requirements are contained in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.

Under CEQA, the “lead agency” (the local public agency responsible for granting approval of public and private development plans and projects within its jurisdiction) must analyze a project’s impact on various environmental resources, including natural, scenic, and historical resources. Pub. Res. Code §21001, subd. (b); Cal. Code Regs. §15002, subd. (k). If the lead agency determines that the environmental impacts of the project are not significant, it prepares and makes available to the public a Negative Declaration. Cal. Code Regs. §15064, subd. (f)(3). Conversely, if the lead agency determines that the project will have significant impacts on the environment, it prepares and publishes for public review an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”). Cal. Code Regs. §15064, subd. (a)(1). In the EIR, the lead agency must identify mitigation measures or alternatives that would avoid the significant effects of the project on the environment, or show that the unmitigated effects are outweighed by the project’s benefits. Cal. Code Regs. §15065, subd. (c). Finally, once the lead agency decides whether and under what conditions to approve a development project, it issues a Notice of Determination. Cal. Code Regs. §15094.

An individual, business, or association directly impacted by a public agency’s approval of a project under CEQA may challenge the agency’s actions by a petition for writ of mandate. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085, subdivision (a), provides:

“A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by that inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person.”

The petition for writ of mandate must be filed within 30 days of the Notice of Determination. Cal. Code Regs. §15112, subd. (c)(1). In ruling on a petition for writ of mandate, the court’s task is to determine whether the respondent public agency abused its discretion by either failing to proceed in a manner required by law or by making a determination not supported by substantial evidence. Pub. Res. Code §21168.5. Substantial evidence is evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of sufficient value to support the public agency’s findings and conclusions, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392-393. If the dispute is predominantly one of facts, the court must uphold the agency’s actions that are supported by substantial evidence. Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2001) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435. However, the court determines de novo whether the agency failed to comply with the procedural requirements of CEQA, such as approving a project with significant environmental impacts without preparing an EIR. Save Tara v. City of Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 131.

In the present case, Young America’s Foundation filed a timely petition for writ of mandate on December 8, 2016, challenging the decision of County to approve the GCP. Petitioner contends that County abused its discretion under CEQA by certifying the EIR for the plan that failed to provide a site-specific environmental analysis of the proposed trails, thereby depriving decision-makers an opportunity to make an informed decision. Because of the specificity used in the GCP in identifying and mapping trails, particularly the WCCC Trail through the southern portion of the Reagan Ranch, petitioner contends that the EIR’s general (“program-level”) review of the trails was insufficient and that a site-specific (“project-level”) review was required. Under CEQA, the purpose of an EIR is to provide public agencies, and the general public, with detailed information about the effects a proposed project or plan is likely to have on the environment, how the significant effects of the plan might be minimized, and whether there are reasonable alternatives to the plan. Pub. Res. Code §21061. When a public agency certifies an EIR that does not provide the decision-makers and the public with information about the plan that is required by CEQA, it fails to proceed in a manner required by law and its actions are a nullity. Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 925.

CEQA governs the requirements for adequate review of private and public agency plans and projects. In most cases, the level of impact that a project will have on the environment determines what level of analysis must be performed. As discussed above, if only minimal impacts are anticipated, then a Negative Declaration may be used. Cal. Code Regs. §15064, subd. (f)(3). A Negative Declaration must include a brief description of the project, the location of the project, and a finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Cal. Code Regs. §15071, subds. (a), (b), (c). It must also include a copy of the public agency’s Initial Study that documents why the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Cal. Code Regs. §15071, subd. (d). If significant environmental impacts are anticipated, then an EIR with its detailed analysis of the environmental effects and possible ways to minimize those effects must be prepared. Cal. Code Regs. §15121, subd. (a). The EIR is considered the key environmental document under CEQA. Laurel Heights Improvement Association, supra, 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.

When the lead agency determines that an EIR is required for a particular plan or project, “[t]he degree of specificity required in [the] EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR.” Cal. Code Regs. §15146; North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Kawamura (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 647, 679 (the level of specificity in an EIR is determined by the nature of the project and the rule of reason). Thus, an EIR for a construction project will necessarily be more detailed regarding the specific effects of the project than an EIR for a local general plan “because the effects of the construction project can be predicted with greater accuracy.” Cal. Code Regs. §15146, subd. (a). An EIR for a local general plan, on the other hand, “focus[es] on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption” of the plan and “need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow.” Cal. Code Regs. §15146, subd. (b). If a project is “broad, general, multi-objective, policy-setting, [and] geographically dispersed,” then the EIR need only study the project broadly to match its scope. In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Report (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1171.

In the present case, County elected to use a general, or program-level, EIR when it conducted its environmental review of the GCP. (AR000290-291.) Petitioner contends that this level of review was inappropriate because County knew, or could reasonably foresee, the location, nature, and extent of all, or at least certain, proposed trails identified in the GCP and therefore County was required to perform a more detailed, project-level, review to determine the site-specific impacts of siting trails through historical resources like the Reagan Ranch. The Parks, Recreation, and Trails (“PRT”) element of the GCP includes a series of detailed maps that graphically depict the location of both existing and proposed trails within the plan area. (AR014057-079.) One of the maps shows the location of the proposed WCCC Trail where it crosses the Reagan Ranch, just west of Refugio Road. (AR014059.) The vision for the WCCC Trail and other proposed trails is explained in the PRT as follows:

“The purpose and intent of the Gaviota Coast Plan Parks, Recreation and Trails Element (PRT) is to create quality recreational experiences for the public, while preserving and protecting valuable natural resources, cultural resources, agricultural operations and adjoining land uses, and the rural character of the Plan Area.

“The County recognizes that provision of new parks, open space, trails and recreational opportunities is a key element of the Gaviota Coast Plan and that the level of such improvements should reflect this Plan Area’s National, State and County significance as a recreational resource. Outdoor recreation is an important activity for residents of our County and for countless visitors that fosters an appreciation of the natural world and promotes public health and welfare. While trails, open space and parks must be sensitively designed to respect agriculture and biological resources, they are a Coastal Act priority use and a high priority for the County. As a high priority, these types of improvements must be actively pursued.” (AR014052-053.)

Specifically with regard to recreational trails, the PRT states:

“The Gaviota Planning and Advisory Committee (GavPAC) has recognized that the recreational component is a priority in crafting the PRT. The GavPAC addressed trail issues in the spirit of cooperation and respect for divergent viewpoints, balancing the interests of both the public and private property owners.

“In order to realize the vision of creating a complimentary network of trails, linking and providing access to the sea and mountains, the PRT includes a set of maps graphically depicting a network of lateral and vertical trail alignments accompanied by PRT trail narratives explaining contextual conditions; a general policy framework for general trail siting, design and intensity of use issues; location guidelines and design standards for specific trail segments; and policies and guidelines to incentivize completion of the network. The intent of the PRT policies and maps, therefore, is to direct the County as it incrementally implements the Plan while adhering to the following principles:

“● To establish a regional trail system that effectively meets the needs of the public;

“● To manage the human impact on agricultural operations, natural resources, cultural resources, private property and privacy;

“● To respect private property rights in trail planning and acquisition; and

“● To provide necessary infrastructure, maintenance, and trail management.

“By following these principles while maintaining the PRT, the County will, over time, establish an effective system of trails that provides the public with a superior recreational experience, protects natural resources, cultural resources, agricultural resources and adjoining land uses, and preserves the rural character of the region.” (AR014053.)

Finally, the PRT explains the principles that were used in siting each of the proposed recreational trails:

“The Gaviota Coast Plan Parks, Recreation and Trails map identifies general trail alignments and locations for planning purposes to establish a network of inland and coastal public trail opportunities with the Gaviota Coast Plan Area. Potential trail alignments and locations on the PRT maps include both general and more defined trail alignments and locations that should be considered along with adopted Plan policies, development standards, trail narratives, and supporting Plan text. Trails described by the Plan should be prioritized to establish practical trail routes within the planning horizon. The Plan provides additional guidance regarding trail alignments and locations, alignment preferences and intent (where specified), opportunities and constraints, as well as resources, land use and ownership considerations to be addressed in all phases of trail planning, easement acquisition, and trail siting, construction, operation, and maintenance. Together, the policy intent reflects the necessity for flexibility in planning the locations of proposed trails. The terrain of an area, privacy of the property owner and neighbors, safety of trail users, environmental constraints, and other facts will influence the ultimate placement of a trail.” (Ibid.)

Two types of recreational trails are shown on the PRT maps – existing trails and proposed trails. (AR014054.) Existing trails are trails that are legally dedicated to the County of Santa Barbara or are located on existing public land managed by the U.S. Forest Service or the California Department of Parks and Recreation. (Ibid.) The trails are usually in the form of an easement containing an approximately 4-6 foot wide path. (Ibid.) The proposed trails are trails that are not yet legally dedicated for public use and are contingent upon trail easement offers by property owners, acquisitions from property owners, or conditions set forth in entitlements to development. (Ibid.) The proposed trails on the PRT maps include both a primary route and a secondary route. (Ibid.) The primary route indicates the preferred trail location with respect to general alignment, while the secondary route is an optional trail route if the primary route is deemed infeasible. (Ibid.)

Petitioner argues that the mapped locations of the proposed trails in the GCP are quite precise and that a higher level of environmental review (i.e., project-level review instead of program-level review) was required before adoption of the plan. Petitioner points to the PRT maps depicted in Figures 4-1 through 4-9 of the GCP, particularly Figure 4-2, which shows where the proposed WCCC Trail crosses the Reagan Ranch, as examples of the precision used by County staff in preparing the EIR, and ultimately, the GCP. (AR014057-079.) However, the GCP clearly states that the network of proposed trails are not final trails, but merely “trail corridors” intended to identify general locations of possible future trails. The GCP provides:

“The lines that represent trails on the PRT maps are not intended to depict precise trail locations. Instead, each line represents a general corridor within which a trail is proposed. There are two reasons for this. First, the large scale of the maps makes it difficult to show precise trail routes. Second, flexibility is required to plan and implement exact trail locations. The terrain of an area, privacy of the property owner and neighbors, safety of trail users, agricultural operations and environmental constraints often influence the ultimate placement of a trail.” (AR014055.)

The trail narratives that accompany each map also make clear that the trail alignments shown on the maps are “proposed trail alignments and locations,” not final locations of future trails. (AR014056.) For example, Figure 4-2, which shows the east portion of the WCCC Trail in the general area of the Reagan Ranch, west of Refugio Road, includes the following narrative:

“PRT Map – East Panel (See Figure 4-2)

“1. One additional inland trail route shall be created between El Capitan State Park (north of Highway 101) and the eastern planning area boundary, to achieve one additional vertical trail from Highway 101 to West Camino Cielo. For this future trail alignment, the proposed trail alignment on Dos Pueblos Ranch or the proposed Farren Road trail (Goleta Community Plan PRT-3 map) shall be reviewed and one selected as the most suitable and achievable route.

“2. The proposed trail alignment for West Camino Cielo crest trail west of Refugio Road generally follows parcel boundaries and the historic alignment of West Camino Cielo Road west of Refugio Road.

“3. The County shall work with surrounding land owners, Los Padres National Forest, County Parks, CRAHTAC, the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County, and community groups to consider the potential for alternative trail alignments for the West Camino Cielo crest trail west of Refugio Road, including existing trail easements as an alternative alignment.” (Ibid.)

Because the proposed trails depicted in the GCP are generalized trail corridors, not final trails, the site-specific locations of the trails are speculative at this point. Until the actual locations of the trails are determined, based on the GCP’s numerous trail siting guidelines and requirements (AR014053), a site-specific environmental analysis of the impacts of the trails, as well as possible mitigation measures or alternatives, is simply not feasible. The location, nature, and extent of a trail are necessary antecedents to conducting a detailed, project-level, review of the trail.

When preparing an EIR, the lead agency is allowed to rely on a concept known as “tiering.” “Tiering” refers to the process of analyzing general matters, such as a local area or community plan, in a broad, first-tier EIR (known as a “program-level” EIR), while reserving specific aspects of the project for narrower, second-tier EIRs (known as “project-level” EIRs). Cal. Code Regs. §15152, subd. (a). “Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy, or program to an EIR . . . for another plan, policy, or program of lesser scope, or to a site-specific EIR.” Cal. Code Regs. §15152, subd. (b). When a lead agency uses tiering in connection with an EIR for a large-scale planning project, the development of detailed, site-specific information may not be feasible and can generally be deferred “until such time as the lead agency prepares a future environmental document in connection with a project of more limited geographical scale.” Cal Code Regs. §15152, subd. (c).

In this case, as noted above, County elected to use a first-tier, program-level, EIR to conduct its environmental review of the GCP. (AR000290-291.) The Court finds that a program-level EIR was appropriate given that the GCP is a broad land use policy document. The GCP does not identify site-specific projects, such as the final location of a proposed trail. “[T]he level of detail contained in a first-tier [program-level] EIR need not be greater than that of the program, plan, policy, or ordinance being analyzed.” Cal. Code Regs. §15152, subd. (b). Thus, while a program-level EIR “evaluates the broad policy direction of a planning document, such as a general plan, [it] does not examine the potential site-specific impacts of the many individual projects that may be proposed in the future consistent with the plan.” Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1047. Conversely, a project-level EIR “is prepared for a specific project and must examine in detail site-specific considerations.” In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Report, supra, 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1169. County, therefore, was not required to focus its program-level EIR on site-specific projects.

The case of Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 351 is directly on point. In Rio Vista, the plaintiffs brought an action challenging the adoption by the county of a hazardous waste management plan as part of its general plan. The waste management plan analyzed existing waste facilities, determined the need for additional or expanded facilities, and identified potentially suitable locations for the development of new facilities. The proposed hazardous waste sites were general areas only and not actual sites as these would be determined later after further environmental review. The plaintiffs argued that the program-level EIR was inadequate because it failed to analyze the environmental impacts of the potential hazardous waste sites in detail, particularly the facility proposed for their immediate neighborhood. The trial court found that the county had complied with CEQA in adopting the plan and rendered judgment for the county. The court of appeal affirmed, holding that a site-specific analysis was not required because the project under consideration was a broad general plan and no decision had been made to site a waste facility at a particular location, or whether future facilities would even be built. Id., at 371. As the court explained:

“CEQA requires consideration of the potential environmental effects of the project actually approved by the public agency, not some hypothetical project. Where the future development is unspecified and uncertain, no purpose can be served by requiring an EIR to engage in sheer speculation as to future environmental consequences.” Id., at 372 (internal quotes and citations omitted).

Like the proposed hazardous waste sites in Rio Vista, the trail corridors in this case are general areas only and until the hypothetical trails are presented as an actual project, or series of projects, County cannot be expected to conduct an environmental analysis on trails that do not yet exist. Performing a site-specific analysis of miles of non-existent trails would be very time consuming and expensive. The actual location of the trails could also be vastly different from the proposed trails. Of course, because the program-level EIR did not consider the site-specific impacts, mitigation measures, or alternatives to the proposed trails, these matters will have to be studied in any subsequent project-level EIR before the WCCC Trial and the other proposed trails can be developed. County acknowledges that when the actual parameters of a proposed trail become known, it will have to perform a site-specific (“project-level”) analysis under CEQA. (Opposition, p. 26:13-14.) The EIR states:

“Because this document provides a program-level analysis, future development plans would be required to provide project-level environmental analysis.” (AR000381.)

In its reply, petitioner argues that the trails in the GCP, particularly the WCCC Trail, have been mapped and described in a way that is not merely speculative and therefore at least some location-specific environmental review was required. County’s own depiction of the trail corridors shows that they are only 8-10 feet wide, which makes them relatively exact lines and not wide corridors as claimed. (AR001638.) In describing the trail alignment of the WCCC Trail in particular, the GCP states that the trail “generally follows parcel boundaries and the historic alignment of West Camino Cielo Road west of Refugio Road.” (AR014056.) The “historic alignment” of West Camino Cielo Road west of Refugio Road is, in actuality, a gated private driveway on the south side of the Reagan Ranch that is shared by the Ranch and other neighboring properties. (AR009559, AR013592.) CEQA only permits tiering to postpone evaluation of certain projects when the details of those projects are not known or reasonably foreseeable. Town of Atherton v. California High-Speed Rail Authority (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 314, 346. Because the location, nature, and extent of the WCCC Trail are already known, or reasonably foreseeable, petitioner argues that County may not defer its evaluation and analysis of the trail until some future, second-tier project.

The Court disagrees that the proposed trail corridors in the GCP are final locations of future trails. The GCP’s plain language states that the corridors are merely “general tail alignments and locations.” (AR014053.) While the PRT element includes a series of maps depicting a network of proposed trails accompanied by generalized trail narratives, it is clear that County wants to maintain flexibility in planning and siting the trails. “The Gaviota Coast Plan Parks, Recreation and Trails map identifies general trail alignments and locations for planning purposes to establish a network of inland and coastal public trail opportunities with the Gaviota Coast Plan Area. . . . [The GCP] reflects the necessity for flexibility in planning the locations of proposed trails. The terrain of an area, privacy of the property owner and neighbors, safety of trail users, environmental constraints, and other facts will influence the ultimate placement of a trail.” (Ibid.) The precise trail locations, therefore, will require consideration of several factors, including natural and historical resources, as well as the concerns of landowners, before a final decision to site a trail can be made.

As an alternative to requiring County to vacate its approval of the GCP and prepare and circulate a new EIR with a project-level review of all proposed trails, petitioner requests that the Court remove the line on the map for the WCCC Trail (AR014059) and replace it “with a transparent color-band extending one mile on either side of the general ridgeline forming the northern boundary of the GCP area.” (Opening Brief, p. 19:10-11.) Petitioner argues that this “would allow future tail siting on properties other than the Reagan Ranch thereby increasing the chance of landowner acceptance.” (Id., at 19:12-13.) The Court, however, cannot force County to modify the GCP in a particular way. If a trial court finds that the lead agency failed to comply with the requirements of CEQA, it can only order (1) that the agency void the determination, finding, or decision in whole or in part, (2) that the agency suspend specific project activities related to the determination, finding, or decision until the agency takes action to comply with CEQA, or (3) that the agency take specific action so that the determination, finding, or decision complies with CEQA. Pub. Res. Code §21168.9, subd. (a).

Thus, under CEQA, a trial court could require an agency to void its certification of an EIR and to conduct a new environmental review. See, e.g., Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1125. A trial court could also require an agency to set aside its adoption of a negative declaration and replace it with an EIR. See, e.g., Nelson v. County of Kern (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 252, 285. However, a trial court may not direct the agency to exercise its discretion in a particular manner as the order “may only include the mandates necessary to achieve compliance with CEQA.” Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 287, citing Pub. Res. Code §21168.9; see also, Sacks v. City of Oakland (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1081 (holding that a writ of mandate may issue against a county, city, or other public agency, but the writ may not control the discretion vested in the public agency). Here, the Court may not issue an order requiring modification of the GCP maps and narratives in a particular way as this would improperly usurp the discretionary authority vested in County under CEQA.

Based on the foregoing, the petition for writ of mandate of Young America’s Foundation will be denied. This does not mean that County is free to construct a public trail through the Reagan Ranch. The current writ petition, however, is premature. The GCP is a broad land use policy document and therefore a program-level EIR was appropriate. The trail corridors depicted in the GCP are not final trails, but merely general locations of possible future trails. If and when County decides to site actual trails within the plan area, it will have to conduct a site-specific, project-level analysis of the trails under CEQA. Should petitioner believe that the project-level analysis is inadequate, it may seek a writ of mandate at that time, challenging the project.