224 Cal. App. 4th 262
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Tower Lane Properties sought building and grading permits to construct a three‑residence compound across three contiguous hillside lots totaling ~85,000 sq ft in Benedict Canyon.
- The City of Los Angeles’ Planning Department conditioned issuance of a grading permit on compliance with LAMC § 91.7006.8.2, which requires approval of a tentative tract map for hillside grading sites >60,000 sq ft.
- Tower Lane contended the provision applies only to subdivisions (tentative tract maps show proposed subdivisions) and thus no map was required because no subdivision was proposed; it petitioned for a writ to clear the condition.
- The trial court granted the writ, concluding § 91.7006.8.2 applies only when land is subdivided; the City and neighboring intervenors appealed.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed statutory construction de novo, examined the LAMC structure and context (including § 91.7006.8.1 and the Division of Land Regulations), and considered the City’s inconsistent historical practice and recent internal memoranda.
- The court affirmed: the tentative tract map requirement applies to subdivision projects only; because Tower Lane proposed no subdivision, the City could not condition the grading permit under § 91.7006.8.2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LAMC § 91.7006.8.2 requires approval of a tentative tract map before issuing a grading permit for large hillside sites that are not being subdivided | § 91.7006.8.2 is subdivision‑specific; tentative tract maps and the advisory agency relate only to subdivisions, so no map is required for non‑subdivision grading | The ordinance should be read to require tract map approval (or equivalent review) for all large hillside grading projects to ensure environmental and site suitability review | The ordinance applies only to subdivision projects; because Tower Lane proposed no subdivision, the tentative tract map requirement did not apply |
| Whether deference is owed to the City’s contemporaneous interpretation (memoranda applying the ordinance to all large hillsides) | N/A (Tower Lane argued plain language controls) | The City urged deference to its agencies’ interpretation and post‑application procedures requiring CEQA review for large hillside projects | Court declined deference: City’s historical application was inconsistent, memoranda were recent/unpublished at time of application, and plain statutory language controlled |
Key Cases Cited
- Burden v. Snowden, 2 Cal.4th 556 (1992) (principle that statutory interpretation aims to ascertain legislative intent; courts must not rewrite ordinances)
- Gardner v. County of Sonoma, 29 Cal.4th 990 (2003) (Subdivision Map Act governs local regulation of subdivisions and map approval processes)
- Woodland Park Management, LLC v. City of East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Bd., 181 Cal.App.4th 915 (2010) (de novo review for ordinance interpretation)
- People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 (1996) (plain meaning rule: where intent is unambiguous, no need for construction)
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (1998) (factors for agency deference and when courts may rely on agency expertise)
- Santa Clara County Local Transp. Auth. v. Guardino, 11 Cal.4th 220 (1995) (avoid interpreting statutes to render words surplusage unless compelled by legislative intent)
- Traverso v. People ex rel. Dep’t of Transp., 46 Cal.App.4th 1197 (1996) (an agency’s erroneous interpretation does not bind the court even if ordinance is reenacted unchanged)