West Chandler Boulevard Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles
198 Cal. App. 4th 1506
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Chabad sought a CUP and parking variance in the R-1 zone to expand from a 1,500–square-foot synagogue to a larger 12,000–square-foot building with 28 feet height.
- Zoning administrator granted a CUP and reduced assembly space and parking requirements; City then approved a modified plan via council review.
- Planning Commission denied Chabad’s appeal; city council later asserted jurisdiction under the City Charter to review the decision.
- City Council adopted a compromise proposal reducing height and adjusting parking, approving a 12,000–square-foot building with five parking spaces and 200-person capacity, without allowing appellants to address the proposal at the hearing.
- Appellants filed a petition for writ of mandate under CCP §1094.5 alleging lack of proper findings, noncompliance with Topanga and LAMC, and due process issues; court held issues waived but ultimately found city council abused discretion.
- Trial court denied writ; Chabad sought attorney fees; on appeal, the matter focuses on whether the council complied with statutory review procedures and supported its findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the City Council comply with L.A. Charter §245 and LAMC §12.24/12.27 and Topanga in reviewing CUP/variance? | Ramin/Gantman: council failed to follow mandated procedures and to bridge the analytic gap between evidence and action. | Chabad: council acted within charter authority and adequately reviewed record and findings. | Council abused discretion; must remand to comply with Topanga and Municipal Code |
| Was the council’s modification of the zoning administrator’s CUP/variance decision supported by the record and proper findings? | Record showed larger building and different assembly space not grounded in administrator’s findings; wrong basis for decision. | Council could modify within its review authority under §245 and required procedures were met. | Abuse of discretion; findings did not bridge the analytic gap and were conclusory |
| Did the council’s action rely on evidence not in the record, violating Topanga and LAMC requirements? | Council relied on a new compromise proposal not considered by zoning administrator. | Council review was within its charter authority and did not require re-examination of every prior finding. | Abuse of discretion; decision not based on the record and failed to show analytic path |
| Did appellants waive Topanga/12.27 issues by failing to raise them earlier? | Waiver; trial court should have barred Topanga/12.27 challenges. | Waiver did not apply; issues were adequately raised to give opposing party opportunity to respond. | Not waived |
| What is the proper standard of review under CCP §1094.5 for the city council’s review of CUP/variance decisions? | Review must ensure the council acted within jurisdiction and with proper findings bridging evidence to decision. | Review is limited to whether the council acted within its charter and followed procedures. | The council failed to meet due process and statutory requirements; writ granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Topanga Assn. for Scenic Conscious v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 506 (Cal. 1974) (requires bridging analytic gap between evidence and decision; substantial review of variance)
- Great Oaks Water Co. v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist., 170 Cal.App.4th 956 (Cal. App. Dist. 6th 2009) (focus on sufficiency of agency’s analytic route and evidence-to-decision path)
- Stolman v. City of Los Angeles, 114 Cal.App.4th 916 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist. 2003) (judicial review of variance decisions to protect nearby property rights)
- Lagrutta v. City Council, 9 Cal.App.3d 890 (Cal. App. 3rd Dist. 1970) (cites de novo vs record-based review; Stockton charter context)
- Craik v. County of Santa Cruz, 81 Cal.App.4th 880 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2000) (emphasizes that findings must be supported and not isolated)