Levin v. City of Los Angeles

Filed 5/1/06 Levin v. City of Los Angeles CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FIVE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. David P. Yaffe and Ralph W. Dau, Judges. Affirmed.

Gaines & Stacey, Fred Gaines, Rebecca A. Thompson and Alicia B. Bartley for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Jeri L. Burge and Jolaine Harkless, Assistant City Attorneys, for Defendant and Respondent.

_____________________________________

Plaintiff and appellant John Levin appeals from a judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer in favor of defendant and respondent City of Los Angeles. In 1998, the City approved variances and issued Levin a building permit to construct a tennis court on residential property located within the Mulholland Scenic Parkway Specific Plan, but not visible from Mulholland Drive. In February 2001, the City refused to issue a final certificate of occupancy for the tennis court and required Levin to submit a design review application for the project to the Mulholland Scenic Parkway Design Review Board (the Board). Levin filed a petition for a writ of mandate and also alleged violations of his constitutional rights. The writ petition was denied and the trial court sustained the City's demurrer to the remaining causes of action without leave to amend. On appeal, Levin contends: (1) he had a vested property right in the building permit for the tennis court and the City's refusal to issue a final certificate of occupancy violated his right to procedural due process; (2) at the time that Levin received his permit, the City did not require projects to be submitted to the Board for design review unless visible from Mulholland Drive, and therefore, requiring him to submit an application for design review after the completion of construction was so arbitrary as to violate Levin's right to substantive due process; (3) the City's actions constituted a taking without just compensation; and (4) the City singled out Levin to submit a design review application to the Board, but did not require similarly situated projects to submit design review applications, in violation of Levin's right to equal protection. We conclude Levin has not stated a cause of action for a violation of his constitutional rights, and therefore, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mulholland Scenic Parkway Specific Plan

Every city must adopt a â€