31 Cal.App.5th 42
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiffs Venice Coalition to Preserve Unique Community Character and Celia R. Williams sued the City of Los Angeles claiming the City improperly exempted certain Venice development projects from permit, notice, and hearing requirements under the Venice specific plan and the California Coastal Act.
- Plaintiffs pleaded due process, violations of the Coastal Act and the Venice Land Use Plan (LUP), unlawful use of exemptions under Public Resources Code § 30610, and sought injunctive relief; the City moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the City on all causes of action; plaintiffs appealed as to the first, second, fourth, and fifth causes (not the third).
- The Venice specific plan authorizes a ministerial "Venice Sign-Off" (VSO) for small-scale projects that meet fixed, objective measurements; other projects require a discretionary project permit compliance review under section 8C.
- The City must also comply with the Coastal Act: local governments may issue coastal development permits (CDPs) and certain exemptions under § 30610; the Venice Local Coastal Program (LUP) is certified, and the City’s specific plan was adopted to implement LUP standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the VSO process triggers procedural due process (notice/hearing) | VSO approvals deny residents due process because they affect property/character and lack notice/hearing | VSO is ministerial—based on fixed objective standards—so no hearing required | VSO is ministerial; no due process notice/hearing required |
| Whether the Director must independently review every VSO project for consistency with the LUP | Director must perform discretionary LUP compatibility review for all projects, including VSOs | The specific plan implements LUP standards; compliance with specific plan means LUP consistency, so no separate review required | No independent LUP review required for VSO projects; challenge to plan consistency is time-barred under Gov. Code § 65009(c)(1)(A) |
| Whether the City unlawfully issued Coastal Act exemptions for additions (and demolitions) to existing structures | Exemptions for additions (or demolitions tied to nuisance abatement) violate § 30610 and regs limiting increases >10% | Coastal regulations’ 10% limitation applies only in defined shoreline/scenic areas; elsewhere additions may be exempted; nuisance abatement/demolition power preserved | Additions can be exempt under § 30610 except where regs impose 10% limits in specified areas; nuisance demolition authority is not limited by the Coastal Act |
| Whether plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief (use of taxpayer funds to issue exemptions) | Injunction needed to stop ongoing illegal exemptions and use of funds | Injunction is a remedy that depends on success of substantive claims; those claims fail | Injunctive relief denied because underlying claims do not succeed; injunction is not independently available |
Key Cases Cited
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Miller v. Dep’t of Corrections, 36 Cal.4th 446 (burden shifting on summary judgment)
- Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 55 Cal.4th 783 (overview of Coastal Act and local CDP authority)
- Calvert v. County of Yuba, 145 Cal.App.4th 613 (distinguishing legislative, adjudicative, and ministerial land-use actions)
- Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prods., 38 Cal.4th 264 (plaintiff’s burden to show triable issues opposing summary judgment)
- Rodriguez v. Solis, 1 Cal.App.4th 495 (ministerial action defined)
- Allen v. City of Sacramento, 234 Cal.App.4th 41 (injunction is a remedy; cannot be maintained without underlying cause of action)