The appellate court case of Friends of Ivan Hill Terrace v. City of Los Angeles
FRIENDS OF IVAN HILL TERRACE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents; THOMAS HOOD et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.
B168837
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO
September 22, 2004, Filed
NOTICE: NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS. CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 977(a), PROHIBIT COURTS AND PARTIES FROM CITING OR RELYING ON OPINIONS NOT CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION OR ORDERED PUBLISHED, EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED BY RULE 977(B). THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION OR ORDERED PUBLISHED FOR THE PURPOSES OF RULE 977.
PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. No. BC276672. David P. Yaffe, Judge.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
COUNSEL: Colantuono, Levin & Rozell, Michael G. Colantuono, Sandra J. Levin, Kenneth C. Hardy; Colantuono & Rozell, Michael G. Colantuono, Sandra J. Levin, and Kenneth C. Hardy for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Jeri L. Burge, Assistant City Attorney, Terry Kaufmann Macias, Mary J. Decker, and Basia Jankowski, Deputy City Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles City Council, J. Andrew Adelman and Con Howe.
Hood & Reed and Thomas W. Hood for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents, Thomas Hood, MKT Community Development Corporation, Mosher Investments, and Ivan Hill Terrace.
JUDGES: ASHMANN-GERST J.; BOREN P.J., NOTT J. Concurred.
OPINION BY: ASHMANN-GERST
OPINION
Appellant Friends of Ivan Hill Terrace appeals the trial court's order denying its request for a petition for writ of mandate. It contends that the City of Los Angeles's (the City) approval of real parties in interest's (real parties) application for a lot line adjustment violates Government Code section 66412, subdivision (d), 1 effective January 1, 2002. Additionally, it argues that the City's approval required a public hearing because the lot line adjustment violated the Los Angeles Municipal Code and the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. (CEQA).
FOOTNOTES
1 All further statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated.
We conclude that the City's approval of real parties' application for a lot line adjustment occurred prior to the effective date of current section 66412, subdivision (d). Thus, former section 66412, subdivision (d) applies, and real parties' application contains that statute's elements of a lot line adjustment making the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) inapplicable. Because the lot line adjustment falls within the parameters of that statute, the parcel map regulations embodied in the Los Angeles Municipal Code are not implicated. For the same reasons, the City's approval of the lot line adjustment was ministerial, and thus is exempt from CEQA.
Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Factual Background
On September 29, 1999, real parties 2 filed an application for a lot line adjustment. Without obtaining a building and safety clearance report, on February 2, 2000, the deputy advisory agency issued its lot line adjustment approval letter to real parties. On February 9, 2000, the deputy advisory agency received the building and safety clearance report, imposing the following conditions upon the lot line adjustment approval: "Submit a revised map to show compliance with area regulations of the RD1.5 & R2 Zone. Minimum lot width 50 feet or obtain lot width variance from the Department of City Planning." On February 24, 2000, the deputy advisory agency sent a subsequent approval letter to real parties including the new conditions.
FOOTNOTES
2 Real parties include Thomas Hood, Charlie Miller, Bret Mosher, MKT Community Development Corporation, Mosher Investments, and Ivan Hill Terrace, LLC.
In order to clear the lot line adjustment conditions, on March 4, 2000, real parties filed an application for a variance. After two public hearings, the zoning administrator approved the variance on October 12, 2001. The zoning administrator's determination was appealed and, following three hearings, the East Los Angeles Area Planning Commission sustained the zoning administrator's determination. Ultimately, on March 6, 2002, the City Council reversed that decision and denied the variance.
Apparently anticipating the denial, real parties attempted to clear the alternate condition of their lot line adjustment approval. On January 11, 2002, they satisfied the 50-foot lot width condition by submitting a revised map, demonstrating compliance with the local zoning and building ordinances. On January 15, 2002, the building and safety department cleared that condition of the February 24, 2000, lot line adjustment approval.
2. Procedural Background
On June 27, 2002, appellant filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief, injunctive relief and violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200. On September 30, 2002, appellant filed its motion for peremptory writ of mandate, seeking an order setting aside the City's "January 15, 2002 determination that the conditions of the February 24, 2000 approval of [real parties' application for a lot line adjustment] had been satisfied." Focusing upon the map submitted to the City in 2000 and the revised map submitted in 2002, appellant argued that the City's approval violated section 66142, subdivision (d), effective January 1, 2002, and Los Angeles Municipal Code section 17.50, subdivision (B)(3)(c). Respondents and real parties opposed the motion, arguing that the City properly approved the lot line adjustment application after real parties satisfied the minimum lot width condition. "Because the lot line adjustment conformed to all local zoning and building ordinances, the City had a mandatory duty to grant the adjustment. Nothing more is required."
At the hearing on January 30, 2003, the trial court issued a tentative ruling denying appellant's petition for writ of mandate. Citing San Dieguito Partnership v. City of San Diego (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 748, 759-760 (San Dieguito), the trial court found that "the lot line adjustment does not violate [section 66412, subd. (d)], either in its present form or as it formerly read. The statute clearly states: 'No tentative map, parcel map, or final map shall be required as a condition of approval of a lot line adjustment. The lot line adjustment shall be reflected in a deed, which shall be recorded.' Under either the new statute or the old statute, the City need not deal with a lot line adjustment in a way similar to the way it deals with a subdivision." At the trial court's request, the parties submitted additional briefs and the hearing was continued to March 20, 2003. Ultimately, the trial court denied the petition for writ of mandate for the reasons set forth in its January 30, 2003, minute order. Additionally, the trial court found that appellant had "no cause of action for violation of the Subdivision Map Act, because the lot line adjustment did not 'create' any greater number of parcels, therefore it did not divide real property and the Subdivision Map Act is inapplicable." Judgment was entered accordingly, and this timely appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
The parties correctly agree that the applicable standard of review is de novo. Interpretation of a statute and determination of its applicability are questions of law to be decided de novo by the appellate court. (Prentiss v. City of South Pasadena (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 85, 89; In re Marriage of Abernethy (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1198.) We review ordinances under the same de novo standard of review. (Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. City of Carson Mobilehome Park Rental Review Bd. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 281, 290.)
II. The Trial Court Properly Denied Appellant's Petition for Writ of Mandate
The SMA governs all divisions of land. ( § 66499.30.) Unless an exemption applies, any division of land to allow separate development and sale of the resulting parcels must be approved by a tentative and final tract map or, if authorized by local ordinance, by a parcel map. ( § 66411.)
One such exemption is for certain lot line adjustments. ( § 66412, subd. (d).) At issue in this appeal is whether the City's approval of real parties' application for a lot line adjustment violated section 66412, subdivision (d) because the proposed lot line adjustment did not meet the requirements of that statute.
Preliminarily, we must determine whether former section 66412, subdivision (d) 3 or current section 66412, subdivision (d) 4 governs. The first sentence of both statutes "contains the elements of a lot line adjustment which makes the SMA inapplicable." (San Dieguito, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 756.) Appellant contends that the City approved the lot line adjustment in May 2002, after real parties recorded their approved lot line adjustment. If appellant is correct, then current section 66412, subdivision (d) applies, and the City improperly approved the lot line adjustment without a hearing as the lot line adjustment affects more than four parcels. In contrast, respondents and real parties contend that the City approved the lot line adjustment in February 2000, when the City sent real parties the second approval letter identifying the conditions that needed to be satisfied in order for the approval to be effective. If respondents are correct, then section 66412, subdivision (d) in effect at that time applies, and the City did not violate the statute by approving the lot line adjustment without a hearing.
FOOTNOTES
3 Former section 66412, subdivision (d) provides: "This division shall be inapplicable to: . . . (d) A lot line adjustment between two or more existing adjacent parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjacent parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created, provided the lot line adjustment is approved by the local agency, or advisory agency. A local agency or advisory agency shall limit its review and approval to a determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to local zoning and building ordinances. An advisory agency or local agency shall not impose conditions or exactions on its approval of a lot line adjustment except to conform to local zoning and building ordinances, to require the prepayment of real property taxes prior to the approval of the lot line adjustment, or to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure, or easements. No tentative map, parcel map, or final map shall be required as a condition to the approval of a lot line adjustment. The lot line adjustment shall be reflected in a deed, which shall be recorded. No record of survey shall be required for a lot line adjustment unless required by Section 8762 of the Business and Professions Code."
4 Effective January 1, 2002, section 66412, subdivision (d) provides, in relevant part: "This division shall be inapplicable to: . . . A lot line adjustment between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjoining parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created, if the lot line adjustment is approved by the local agency, or advisory agency. . . . An advisory agency or local agency shall not impose conditions or exactions on its approval of a lot line adjustment except to conform to the local general plan, any applicable coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances . . . ."
A. Approval Occurred in 2000 and Former Section 66412, Subdivision (d) Applies
We are persuaded by our Supreme Court's decision in Youngblood v. Board of Supervisors (1978) 22 Cal.3d 644, 150 Cal. Rptr. 242 (Youngblood). In Youngblood, the Board of Supervisors of San Diego County (the board) approved a tentative subdivision map on December 10, 1974. (Youngblood, supra, at p. 647.) On December 31, 1974, San Diego County amended its general plan to limit density; "thus when the county approved the final subdivision map on October 25, 1975, the subdivision did not conform to the existing general plan." (Ibid.) Our high court was called upon to consider whether the board acted lawfully in approving a tentative subdivision map. (Youngblood, supra, at pp. 647-648.) At issue was when the tentative map was approved. (Id. at pp. 651-652.) In holding that the map was approved, subject to certain conditions, on December 10, 1974, the Supreme Court reasoned: "The Subdivision Map Act contemplates that the local agency, when it approves a tentative map, will normally attach conditions to that approval, such as the completion of planned subdivision improvements, and will approve the final map only after certifying that the subdivider has complied with those specified conditions. [Citation.] This statutory structure compels the conclusion that the approval of a tentative map subject to conditions is nonetheless an approval for the purpose of determining that map's consistency with the existing general plan. Since the board conditionally approved the tentative subdivision map on December 10, 1974, the features of that map must be measured against the general plan in effect on that date." (Youngblood, at p. 652.)
The court further held that "the date when the tentative map comes before the governing body for approval is the crucial date when that body should decide whether to permit the proposed subdivision. Once the tentative map is approved, the developer often must expend substantial sums to comply with the conditions attached to that approval. . . . Consequently, it is only fair to the developer and to the public interest to require the governing body to render its discretionary decision whether and upon what conditions to approve the proposed subdivision when it acts on the tentative map. Approval of the final map thus becomes a ministerial act once the appropriate officials certify that it is in substantial compliance with the previously approved tentative map." (Youngblood, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 655-656; see also City of West Hollywood v. Beverly Towers, Inc. (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1184, 1190, 1191-1192, fn. 5, 278 Cal. Rptr. 375 (Beverly Towers) ["Tentative map approval is the final discretionary approval issued by a local government under the Map Act; final map approval is merely ministerial if the application for such approval is in substantial compliance with the tentative map and its attendant conditions"].)
We agree with respondents that "although Youngblood involved a tentative tract map . . . and here the issue is a lot line adjustment, the reasoning is the same." "Approval of a tentative map subject to conditions is nonetheless an approval for the purpose of determining" whether former section 66412, subdivision (d), or the recently-amended statute applies. (Youngblood, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 652.)
Appellant argues that Youngblood is distinguishable in that only section 66412, subdivision (d) governs lot line adjustments whereas "the entire balance of the Map Act provides detailed procedures for the discretionary approval of tentative tract maps and the ministerial approval of final tract maps after the conditions of approval of a tentative [map] have been satisfied." Specifically, appellant directs us to Youngblood's citation of section 66458 (formerly Bus. & Prof. Code, § 11611) and attendant policy considerations, namely the "substantial sums" a developer must often expend in seeking to satisfy the conditions attached to tentative map approval. (Youngblood, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 655.) Appellant's reliance upon section 66458 is misplaced. The Youngblood court cited that statute solely to place the primary issue (whether a final map must conform to the general plan in effect when that map came before the governing body for approval or whether it only must conform to the general plan in effect when the tentative map was approved) in context. (Youngblood, supra, at pp. 654-655.) In fact, that statute was not even cited in the section of the opinion wherein the court held that conditional approval nonetheless constitutes approval for purposes of determining a map's consistency with a city's general plan. (Id. at p. 652.)
As for policy considerations, the bottom line is that conditional approval was given to real parties, who did incur expenses in satisfying the conditions imposed by the City prior to final lot line adjustment approval. They should not be forced to anticipate changes by the Legislature throughout the building process. (Youngblood, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 655-656.)
In urging us to hold otherwise, appellant argues that this conclusion gives "low-level City staff the power to immunize Real Parties indefinitely from decisions of the Legislature and to do so on an over-the counter basis without notice or hearing that the City's own ordinances, as well as the Map Act and our Constitution, require." We disagree.
As set forth in the statute, the City's approval could be conditioned upon compliance with local zoning and building ordinances. In approving real parties' application in 2000, that is exactly what the City did. It approved the lot line adjustment, subject to real parties' clearance of certain conditions to comport with local zoning ordinances, namely minimum lot width of 50 feet or obtaining a lot width variance. After their variance was denied, real parties satisfied the alternative 50 foot lot width condition. Nothing more was required, and final parcel map exemption approval became a ministerial act, despite a subsequent change in section 66412, subdivision (d). (Beverly Towers, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 1191.)
Appellant also argues that approval is not final until the lot line adjustment is recorded. Appellant interprets the recordation requirement far too broadly. Nothing in section 66412, subdivision (d) requires recordation as part of the approval process. While the lot line adjustment must be recorded in order to be effective, recordation has no bearing on the City's approval of a lot line adjustment application. (See San Dieguito, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 756 [noting that the recordation requirement is nothing more than a "procedural formality of a lot line adjustment"].)
Because we conclude that former section 66412, subdivision (d) governs, we need not address appellant's argument, raised for the first time in its reply brief, that real parties improperly "created" lots in violation of current section 66412, subdivision (d).
B. The Lot Line Adjustment Approval Does Not Violate the Los Angeles Municipal Code
Appellant argues that the lot line adjustment approval violated Los Angeles Municipal Code section 17.50. We are not persuaded.
As the trial court correctly found, under former section 66412, subdivision (d), "no tentative map, parcel map, or final map shall be required as a condition to the approval of a lot line adjustment." This "sentence[] express[es a] very direct limitation[] on the power and function of the approving agency when presented with a lot line adjustment meeting the provisions of the first sentence." (San Dieguito, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 759.) The City's approval of real parties' lot line adjustment application could not be conditioned upon any sort of tentative, parcel, or final map.
It follows that the City's approval of real parties' application does not violate Los Angeles Municipal Code section 17.50. That section pertains specifically to "parcel maps." One of its express purposes is "intended to assure compliance with the Subdivision Map Act." (L.A. Mun. Code, § 17.50, subd. (A).) Because real parties' lot line adjustment is exempt from the SMA by meeting the requirements of the first sentence of former section 66412, subdivision (d) (San Dieguito, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 760) and one of the limitations of section 66412, subdivision (d) prohibits the City's approval of real parties' lot line adjustment application upon the condition of a parcel map, the City's parcel map regulations simply are not implicated.
Appellant argues that because the City found that street improvements were necessary in conjunction with the lot line adjustment, the City's approval violated Los Angeles Municipal Code section 17.50, subdivision (B)(3)(c)(4). 5 As set forth above, these parcel map regulations are not implicated because the lot line adjustment is exempt pursuant to former section 66412, subdivision (d). These regulations only are relevant if the lot line adjustment is not exempt from the SMA and a parcel map is required. In those circumstances not present here, the need for street improvements may dictate whether these parcel map regulations apply.
FOOTNOTES
5 Los Angeles Municipal Code section 17.50, subdivision (B)(3)(c)(4) provides, in relevant part: "These [parcel map] regulations shall not apply to . . . the following divisions of land . . . [P] Those where the Advisory Agency, or the Appeal Board or the City Council on appeal, determines that all of the following conditions exist: [P] . . . [P] The lot line adjustment, or the project for which it is intended, would not result in the need for street or alley dedication or public improvements.?
C. Equity Does Not Support Appellant's Position
Finally, appellant contends that equity supports granting the writ of mandate because real parties delayed in attempting to clear the conditions of the City's approval of their lot line adjustment. The evidence does not support appellant's theory. Following real parties' receipt of the February 24, 2000, letter, real parties immediately sought to clear the conditions of the City's approval. On March 4, 2000, they immediately applied for a variance. After numerous hearings and at least two appeals, through no fault of real parties, their variance was denied.
Thereafter, real parties attempted to clear the alternative condition of approval by addressing the width issue. They moved quickly and, on January 11, 2002, they resubmitted a map, showing the new subdivisions that complied with the lot width condition. Under these circumstances, equity does not support granting appellant's writ petition.
D. Environmental Review is Not Required Under CEQA for This Lot Line Adjustment Approval
Finally, appellant argues that the City's approval of the lot line adjustment constitutes a "project" for which environmental review is required under CEQA and thus a noticed hearing was required under the SMA. Appellant is mistaken.
Projects requiring only ministerial approval are exempt from CEQA's environmental requirements. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subds. (a) & (b)(1).) As set forth above, the City's approval of the lot line adjustment application was ministerial. (Former § 66412, subd. (d); San Dieguito, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 761.) Real parties' application met the exemption requirements of former section 66412, subdivision (d), and the City had no choice but to approve the lot line adjustment. Accordingly, real parties' lot line adjustment is exempt from CEQA.
DISPOSITION
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Respondents and real parties are entitled to their costs on appeal.
