York v. City of Los Angeles
33 Cal. App. 5th 1178
Cal. Ct. App. 5th
2019

Background

  • Kenneth and Annette York own a 40-acre Hollywood Hills parcel and applied (2011) to build an ~8,000 sq ft house, guest house, driveway, pool, tennis court, and other improvements requiring ~79,700 cu yd of grading (cut and balanced fill).
  • Los Angeles Baseline Hillside Ordinance (BHO) permitted 3,300 cu yd by-right; a zoning administrator may grant much larger deviations after public hearing and specific findings.
  • Zoning Administrator (ZA) approved the residence and most accessory structures but denied the request for ~79,700 cu yd of grading, making findings about scenic prominence, incompatibility, and inconsistency with the Hollywood Community Plan; the ZA acknowledged he misunderstood the full scope of discretion but testified he would reach the same result.
  • Plaintiffs appealed to the Area Planning Commission (APC); the APC upheld the ZA. Plaintiffs then filed a petition for writ of mandate and causes of action for inverse condemnation and civil rights (regulatory-takings/equal protection/due process claims).
  • Trial court denied the writ (finding substantial evidence supported the ZA/APC) and granted the City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to inverse condemnation and civil-rights claims on ripeness grounds; plaintiffs appealed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the ZA abused discretion in denying the 79,700 cu yd grading deviation ZA misunderstood discretion and should have exercised partial grant; denial was arbitrary ZA’s decision (and APC’s review) was supported by findings and substantial evidence; ZA said he would reach same result No abuse of discretion; any ZA misunderstanding was not prejudicial and APC properly sustained denial
Whether the denial effectively precludes any residential development (takings/mandate relief) Denial of the grading request forecloses building any home on the parcel; the City effectively limited grading to 3,300 cu yd City never made a final determination forbidding all development; plaintiffs presented only one (large) grading plan and bore burden to show alternatives futile City did not preclude all development; plaintiffs failed to show the City had drawn a final line; mandate denied
Whether the ZA’s findings were unsupported by evidence Plaintiffs claim the record shows required grading cannot be reduced and some findings conflict with record Much of plaintiffs’ cited material is counsel argument, not evidence; plaintiffs failed to submit alternative plans or evidence justifying balanced grading Findings supported by substantial evidence; plaintiffs failed to carry burden to demonstrate contrary facts
Ripeness of inverse-condemnation and constitutional claims (judgment on pleadings) Claims are ripe because the City’s denial is tantamount to a taking / discriminatory application Regulatory-takings claims are not ripe until agency issues a final, definitive application of regulations to the land (MacDonald); plaintiff never submitted alternative plans or exhausted administrative avenues Claims not ripe; judgment on the pleadings properly granted; leave to amend properly denied as futile

Key Cases Cited

  • MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1986) (takings claim not ripe until final administrative decision about permitted development)
  • Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. 2005) (regulatory takings framework and standards)
  • Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (U.S. 2001) (futility exception where multiple rejected proposals over long period supports takings claim)
  • Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 506 (Cal. 1974) (applicant bears burden to demonstrate environmental/land-use justifications)
  • County of Alameda v. Superior Court, 133 Cal.App.4th 558 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (ripeness requires agency has drawn the line clearly as to allowed uses)
  • Twain Harte Associates, Ltd. v. County of Tuolumne, 217 Cal.App.3d 71 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (ripeness and futility analysis where agency acted peremptorily to rezone)
  • BreakZone Billiards v. City of Torrance, 81 Cal.App.4th 1205 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (applicant bears burden to show entitlement to discretionary land-use relief)
  • Hauser v. Ventura County Bd. of Supervisors, 20 Cal.App.5th 572 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (applicant bears burden to demonstrate entitlement to permit)
Read the full case