Avalon Center Investment Co. v. City of Carson

Filed 8/21/06 Avalon Center Investment Co. v. City of Carson CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David P. Yaffe, Judge. Affirmed.

Buchalter Nemer, Bernard E. Lesage, and Antonella R. Nistorescu; Reed Smith and Margaret Grignon, Abraham J. Colman and Zareh A. Jaltorossian for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Aleshire & Wynder, William W. Wynder, and Fred Galante for Defendants and Respondents.

Appellant Avalon Center Investment Company (Avalon) sought administrative mandamus against respondents, namely, the City of Carson (City) and the City Council of the City of Carson (City Council). The trial court denied appellant's petition. We affirm.

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Avalon owns a parcel of commercial property at the corner of Avalon Boulevard and Del Amo Boulevard in Carson. The parcel adjoins a shopping center owned by the family of Avalon's general partner.

Since 1972, a gas and service station has occupied the parcel. In 2002, Avalon's tenant decided not to renew its lease regarding the parcel. It closed its station, and removed the pumps and underground gasoline storage tanks.

In July 2002, Avalon entered into a lease regarding the parcel with Al-Sal Oil Corporation (Al-Sal), which applied to the City for a permit to build a renovated gas station. Al-Sal proposed to demolish the existing canopy, signage, and buildings on the site, install four new pumps and four underground storage tanks, and erect a canopy, kiosk, and new signage. The proposed new station would sell fuel solely to cars and small commercial vehicles. Unlike the previous station, which sold only gasoline, the new station would also sell diesel fuel.

Staff reports to the City Planning Commission recommended that the proposal be approved. Following public hearings and consideration of additional evidence, on June 10, 2003 the Planning Commission denied the application, citing inadequate parking in the adjoining shopping center, traffic congestion from fuel delivery trucks and commercial vehicles buying diesel fuel, the absence of a public restroom in the kiosk, and the undesirability of an additional gas station in the neighborhood.

Al-Sal appealed this decision to the City Council, and stated that it would modify its proposal to secure approval, including incorporating a public restroom into the kiosk. Following a hearing on October 8, 2003, the City Council indicated its intention to adopt a resolution affirming the Planning Commission's decision denying Al-Sal's application. The City Council formally adopted this resolution on January 6, 2004.

Avalon initiated the underlying action on the same date. On February 4, 2005, it filed an amended petition, alleging that it had a fundamental vested right to the use of its property for a gas station, and that insufficient evidence supported the City Council's findings.

Following a hearing on April 8, 2005, the trial court denied Avalon's petition, and judgment was entered on May 10, 2005. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

Avalon contends that (1) the trial court applied an incorrect standard of review, and (2) substantial evidence does not support the City Council's findings.

A. Standard of Review

An administrative agency's decision may be challenged by a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, which provides for two standards of review. (Malibu Mountains Recreation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 359, 367.)

â€