31 Cal. App. 5th 42
Cal. Ct. App. 5th
2019
Read the full case

Background

  • Venice Coalition sued City of Los Angeles alleging the City routinely exempted certain Venice development projects from (a) Venice specific-plan permit review (via Venice Sign-Offs, VSOs) without notice and hearing and (b) Coastal Development Permits (CDPs), violating due process, the Venice Land Use Plan (LUP), and the Coastal Act.
  • The City moved for summary judgment; trial court granted summary judgment on all causes of action. Venice Coalition appealed as to the first, second, fourth, and fifth causes of action.
  • The Venice specific plan authorizes ministerial VSOs for many small projects based on fixed objective measurements (height, density, setbacks) using checklist forms; other projects undergo discretionary project permit compliance review requiring neighborhood-compatibility findings.
  • The Coastal Act requires CDPs for coastal development but authorizes exemptions for minor improvements; the City has delegated Coastal permitting authority and a Venice LUP was certified in 2001 (Venice local implementation plan remains uncertified).
  • Venice Coalition contested (1) that VSOs deny procedural due process, (2) that the Director must independently review VSOs for LUP consistency, (3) that the City improperly exempts certain additions and nuisance demolitions from CDPs, and (4) sought an injunction to stop the City from using funds to issue exemptions.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether VSO process triggers procedural due process (notice/hearing) VSOs functionally determine land-use outcomes and thus are discretionary decisions requiring notice and hearing. VSO approvals are ministerial: they apply fixed objective standards/checklists and do not require official discretion. VSO process is ministerial; no due process notice/hearing required.
Whether Director must independently review VSO projects for compliance with the certified Venice LUP Director must perform discretionary LUP compatibility review for every project, including VSOs, because LUP requires respect for local scale/character. The amended specific plan was adopted to implement LUP; compliance with specific-plan objective standards satisfies LUP. No ordinance requires separate LUP review for VSOs; challenges to the plan are time-barred. Director need not independently review VSOs for LUP compliance; specific-plan consistency suffices and plan challenge is time-barred.
Whether Coastal Act permits exemptions for additions to existing structures or demolitions ordered for nuisance abatement Exemptions are limited: improvements that increase height or floor area by >10% require CDP across the coastal zone. The 10% limitation in regs applies only in certain proximity/scenic areas; Coastal Act contemplates additions as potentially exempt and nuisance abatement demolitions are authorized. Coastal Commission staff approves such exemptions. Exemptions for additions are permissible outside the specified proximity/scenic areas; 10% rule is geographically limited; nuisance-abatement demolitions are not restricted by Coastal Act.
Whether plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief forbidding the City from using funds to issue exemptions Injunction requested to stop City from funding ongoing illegal exemptions. Injunctive relief depends on success on underlying claims; because claims fail, injunction unavailable. Injunctive relief denied; injunction is a remedy and requires prevailing underlying claims.

Key Cases Cited

  • Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
  • Miller v. Department of Corrections, 36 Cal.4th 446 (liberal construction of opposing summary judgment evidence)
  • Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Prods., 38 Cal.4th 264 (plaintiff must show specific facts to create triable issue)
  • Calvert v. County of Yuba, 145 Cal.App.4th 613 (distinctions among legislative, adjudicative, and ministerial land-use actions)
  • Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 55 Cal.4th 783 (overview of Coastal Act local program certification and delegation)
  • Rodriguez v. Solis, 1 Cal.App.4th 495 (ministerial action defined as nondiscretionary)
  • Allen v. City of Sacramento, 234 Cal.App.4th 41 (injunction is a remedy dependent on success of underlying claims)
Read the full case