|
Zoning Bulletin February 25, 2019 I Volume 13 I Issue 4
<br />Due Process —Coalition
<br />challenges city sign -off
<br />process, which exempts
<br />developments from
<br />compliance review
<br />Coalition says it violates due process
<br />requirements
<br />Citation: Venice Coalition to Preserve Unique Com-
<br />munity Character v. City of Los Angeles, 2019 WL 141477
<br />(Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2019)
<br />CALIFORNIA (01/09/19)—This case addressed the is-
<br />sue of whether the process by which a City's Director of
<br />Planning issued a sign -off to exempt small-scale develop-
<br />ment projects in a neighborhood from project permit
<br />compliance review was subject to due process protection —
<br />requiring that the community be provided an opportunity
<br />for notice and a hearing.
<br />The Background/Facts: When approving or denying
<br />development projects in its Venice community, the City of
<br />Los Angeles (the "City") employs two different, but paral-
<br />lel processes. One process involves the "Venice specific
<br />plan," which governs all development in Venice. The other
<br />process is pursuant to the California Coastal Act, with
<br />which all development in Venice must also comply. Rele-
<br />vant here, to comply with the specific plan, all develop-
<br />ment projects in Venice must either undergo a project
<br />permit compliance review, or obtain a determination that a
<br />review is not required. Thus, for many small-scale develop-
<br />ment projects in Venice, the City's Director of Planning
<br />may issue a "Venice Sign -Off" ("VSO"), which exempts
<br />the project from a project permit compliance review.
<br />In February 2016, Venice Coalition to Preserve Unique
<br />Community Character and Celia R. Williams (collectively,
<br />"Venice Coalition") filed a complaint for declaratory and
<br />injunctive relief against the City and the City's Department
<br />of City Planning (hereinafter, collectively, the "City").
<br />Among other things, Venice Coalition's alleged that the
<br />City was violating due process requirements of California
<br />law by "engag[ing] in a pattern and practice of approving
<br />development projects without affording the community an
<br />opportunity for notice and a hearing." More specifically,
<br />Venice Coalition took issue with the issuance of VSOs
<br />without notice and a hearing.
<br />The City contended that the VSO process was "ministe-
<br />rial" and therefore did not trigger due process protections.
<br />The trial court agreed with the City, and issued sum-
<br />mary judgment in the City's favor.
<br />Venice Coalition appealed.
<br />DECISION: Judgment of superior court affirmed.
<br />The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8, Cali-
<br />fornia, also agreed with the City that the VSO process was
<br />"ministerial" and therefore did not trigger due process
<br />protections.
<br />The court explained that local governments take three
<br />types of actions in land use matters: legislative, adjudica-
<br />tive, and ministerial. Legislative actions "involve the enact-
<br />ment of general laws, standards or policies, such as general
<br />plans or zoning ordinances." Adjudicative actions "involve
<br />discretionary decisions" that apply laws to specific devel-
<br />opment projects such as zoning permits. "Ministerial ac-
<br />tions involve nondiscretionary decisions based only on
<br />fixed and objective standards, not subjective judgment; an
<br />example is the issuance of a typical, small-scale building
<br />permit."
<br />As Venice Coalition had argued, the federal and state
<br />Constitutions prohibit the government (including the City)
<br />from depriving persons of property without due process of
<br />law. (See U.S. Const., 5th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7,
<br />subd. (a).) Looking at the three types of actions taken by
<br />local governments, the court said that adjudicative actions
<br />"that implicate significant or substantial property depriva-
<br />tion" "generally require the procedural due process protec-
<br />tions of reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard."
<br />On the other hand, "[l]egislative action generally does not
<br />require due process protections because 'it is not practical
<br />that everyone should have a direct voice in legislative deci-
<br />sions; elections provide the check there,' " said the court.
<br />And, "[m]inisterial actions do not generally trigger due
<br />process protections because they are `essentially automatic
<br />based on whether .certain fixed standards and objective
<br />measurements have been met,' " explained the court. In
<br />other words, the court explained that, in general: land use
<br />decisions that require a public official to exercise judgment
<br />are discretionary and require notice and a hearing, while
<br />land use decisions that "require a public officer to perform
<br />'in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of
<br />legal authority' without regard to his or her own judgment
<br />are ministerial and do not trigger due process protections."
<br />Here, the court found that in issuing a VSO, the City's
<br />Director of Planning essentially uses checklists to deter-
<br />mine whether or not a proposed project meets specified
<br />objective criteria. The court concluded that issuances of
<br />VSOs were thus ministerial and therefore not entitled to
<br />notice and a hearing. Accordingly, the court concluded that
<br />the City's VSO process did not violate due process
<br />requirements.
<br />See also: Calvert v. County of Yuba, 145 Cal. App. 4th
<br />613, 622, 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 797, 166 O.G.R. 537 (3d Dist.
<br />2006), as modified, (Jan. 3, 2007).
<br />Case Note:
<br />The court's decision also addressed other causes of action
<br />brought by Venice Coalition not discussed in this sununaiy.
<br />©2019 Thomson Reuters 3
<br />
|