Source: http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20CACO%2020110816025.xml
Timestamp: 2015-03-05 06:31:32
Document Index: 181236276

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 245', '§ 563']

Citing Case WEST CHANDLER BLVD. NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Nos. B226663, B229418
WEST CHANDLER BOULEVARD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
Filed August 16, 2011.
Law Offices of Noel Weiss and Noel W. Weiss; Mark S. Shipow for Plaintiffs, Appellants and Respondents West Chandler Boulevard Neighborhood Association, Mitchell Ramin and Jeff Gantman.
Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Timothy McWilliams and Tayo A. Popoola, Deputy City Attorneys, for Defendant and Respondent City of Los Angeles.
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell and Benjamin M. Reznik for Defendants, Respondents and Appellants Chabad of the Valley, Inc. and Chabad of North Hollywood.
1. Any undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Appellants have not challenged the trial court's CEQA finding on appeal.
3. An initial determination regarding a CUP may be made by the Zoning Administrator, the Area Planning Commission, or the City Planning Commission, depending on factors such as the uses and activities. (LAMC, § 12.24(C), (U), (V), (W), & (X).) The Zoning Administrator is the initial decision maker for a CUP for a religious facility in an R-1 zone. (LAMC, § 12.24(W)(9).) The initial decision on a variance is always made by the Zoning Administrator, with some exceptions not relevant here. (LAMC, § 12.27(B).)
4. As to a CUP, the Municipal Code provides: "In approving any conditional use, the decision-maker must find that the proposed location will be desirable to the public convenience or welfare, is proper in relation to adjacent uses or the development of the community, will not be materially detrimental to the character of development in the immediate neighborhood, and will be in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan. In addition, the decision-maker shall make any further findings required by Subsections U, V, W, and X and shall determine that the proposed conditional use satisfies any applicable requirements for the use set forth in those sections. The decision-maker shall adopt written findings of fact supporting the decision based upon evidence in the record, including decision-maker or staff investigations." (LAMC, § 12.24(E).)
As to a variance, the Municipal Code states, in relevant part: "Consistent with Charter Section 562, no variance may be granted unless the Zoning Administrator finds all of the following: [¶] 1. that the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of the zoning regulations; [¶] 2. that there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone and vicinity; [¶] 3. that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right or use generally possessed by other property in the same zone and vicinity but which, because of the special circumstances and practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, is denied to the property in question; [¶] 4. that the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the same zone or vicinity in which the property is located; and [¶] 5. that the granting of the variance will not adversely affect any element of the General Plan. [¶] A variance shall not be used to grant a special privilege or to permit a use substantially inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the same zone and vicinity. The Zoning Administrator may deny a variance if the conditions creating the need for the variance were self-imposed." (LAMC, § 12.27(D).)
5. A decision regarding a CUP may be appealed to the Area Planning Commission or the City Council, depending on who made the initial decision. The Municipal Code provides: "An applicant or any other person aggrieved by the initial decision of the Zoning Administrator may appeal the decision to the Area Planning Commission. An applicant or any other person aggrieved by the initial decision of the Area Planning Commission or the City Planning Commission may appeal the decision to the City Council." (LAMC, § 12.24(I)(2).)
6. The section provides that "[a]ctions of boards of commissioners shall become final at the expiration of the next five meeting days of the Council during which the Council has convened in regular session, unless the Council acts within that time by two-thirds vote to bring the action before it." (L.A. Charter, § 245.)
7. The section on the appeals process states, in pertinent part: "An aggrieved person may appeal a decision of the Zoning Administrator with respect to a conditional use permit or similar quasi-judicial approval to the Area Planning Commission. Decisions of an Area Planning Commission, except those decisions made by the Area Planning Commission on appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator, may be appealed either to the City Planning Commission or Council, as provided by ordinance. However, the process for the approval of conditional use permits and similar quasi-judicial approvals may not include more than one level of appeal from the decision of a decision-making official or body. For purposes of this restriction: [¶] . . . [¶] (C) Council review of an action under Charter Section 245 shall not be considered an appeal for purposes of this section." (L.A. Charter, § 563, subd. (b)(2).)
8. The trial court also found that appellants waived the question whether Councilmember Weiss violated the duty of impartiality by negotiating the compromise with Chabad. We do not address appellants' argument regarding the waiver of this issue because, as discussed below, we need not address appellants' due process arguments.
9. Here, the trial court found that the City Council's findings were supported by the evidence. Because we find that the City Council did not proceed in the manner required by law, we need not address whether the findings were supported by the evidence.
10. We disagree with appellants that the City Council's action was ultra vires and void ab initio. The City Council had the authority to vote to bring the matter before it under section 245 of the L.A. Charter. The City Council's deviation from the process of review set forth in the L.A. Charter and the LAMC did not render its action ultra vires.